BENAZIR BEGAUM,ARIYALUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

During appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that all the submissions have been uploaded in ITBA portal stating that her annual turnover was Rs.6.68 crores which is totally cash based business. Average monthly turnover will be around Rs.55 lakhs. Moreover Gas dealers were allowed to collect SBN (Specified bank notes) from customers for Gas supply during the demonetization period and sales during the demonetization period was around Rs. 90 Lakhs. Hence it can be easily ascertained that cash deposited into bank accounts during demonetization period is from sale proceeds only. Actual cash deposit in the bank account was Rs.42,32,930/- only in (State Bank of India current account number 32549961101). The assessee also attached Bankers Certificate as proof and no cash deposits were made in any other account. The assessee has also submitted that she has also mentioned in the income tax return that Rs.42,22,930/- was deposited in cash into State Bank of India current account number 32549961101 during demonetization period. Hence, she has honestly declared all the particulars without any intention of under reporting of income. Further with regard to the Disallowances of expenditure for non production of bills / vouchers done on estimated basis, assessee submitted that she was not able to provide the same only because of her of unawareness of the notices. Assessee further submitted that accounts have been duly audited by a Chartered Accountant who had not made any adverse comments. Report of the chartered accountant were also filed before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee prayed that the additions made are without considering the above facts in the assessment order. However, ld. CIT(A) was not convinced. As per the ld. CIT(A) assessee had not submitted any documents before the AO and thus tried to escape scrutiny by the AO. The appellant has filed written submissions during the course of appellate proceedings alongwith certain documents as mentioned above which is essentially an additional evidence not submitted before the AO. The additional evidence filed was also incomplete and haphazard. Hence, the CIT(A) did not see any reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 61,65,260/- made by the AO as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s115BBE of the Act and apart of the expenses of Rs. 8,64,271/- disallowed by the AO and brought to tax as the income of assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the ld. AO had not properly followed the principles of natural justice in true spirit. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.AO, assessee will prosecute the case in assessment proceedings properly. Per contra, ld.Addl. CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by both parties before us. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer to prosecute his case with all evidence. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. The Assessing Officer who shall proceed for denovo assessment after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment as per law.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of November, 2024 at Chennai.