Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.17,83,540/- in her bank account during the demonetization period. She did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 and did not comply with notices issued by the AO. The assessee claimed the deposits were from her sister and mother, and her own savings, but failed to provide documentary evidence.
Held
The Tribunal noted the inadequate submission of details and evidences by the assessee before the lower authorities. Considering that the Assessing Officer is the primary authority to examine facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity to present her case and file supporting evidences before the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee has provided sufficient evidence to support the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
131, 142(1), 142(2), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Revenue by : Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068190093(1) dated 30.08.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017- 18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 30.08.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
:- 2 -:
2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities the Ld.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte orders. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.17,83,540/- on account of cash deposits allegedly received by the assessee from her sister and mother of Rs. 8 lakhs each as well as of Rs.1,83,540/- the own savings. It was accordingly pleaded that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. AO to verify the facts and readjudicate the matter. The Ld. DR relied upon order of the authorities below. 3.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order 20.09.2019 information was received that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.17,83,540/- in her bank account maintained with Union Bank of India. The assessee had not filed return of income for 2017-18. No compliance was made to the notices u/s 142(1), 142(2). Before the Ld. AO u/s 131, the assessee deposed that she does not have any source of income. Before the Ld. AO it was submitted that the impugned cash deposits belongs to her sister namely Ms. Kamala, a nurse by profession and a cancer patient, and gift from mother namely Ms. Saraswathy. As the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of her contentions, the Ld. AO made the impugned
:- 3 -: addition. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also there was no adequate response from the assessee. Consequently, in view of continued non submission of any cogent supporting evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) only allowed relief of Rs.7,01,040/- to the assessee being non-SBN, small denomination notes holding it as small savings and confirmed the balance amount Rs.10,82,500/-. 4.0 We have noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of cash deposits in assessee’s bank account during demonetization period lies at the core of the controversy. Before us the Ld.Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit of the assessee explaining her family history and the sources of cash along with some evidences comprising PPF pass book, Bank pass book etc. The assessing officer is the primary authority under the income tax act to be examine facts of a case in the light of available evidences before determining correct taxable income of a tax payer. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. We therefore set aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and we direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 23rd , December-2024 at Chennai