AARTHI.C,VANIYAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VELLORE

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एविं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील िं./ITA No.1632/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aarthi.C Income Tax Officer, Old No.276, New No.9, Vs. Ward-3, Chennampet,Pillaiyar Koil Street, Vellore Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tiruppathur-635751, Tamil Nadu [PAN: AXMPA3026F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT ुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2024 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/250/2023-24/1061325470(1) dated 22.02.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 22.02.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

ITA No. 1632/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:

2.0 The only issue in the impugned appeal is regarding an addition of Rs.3,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We have heard the rival’s submission in the light of material available on records. The Ld. AO in his order noted that the assesse has made cash deposit of Rs.10,08,500/- in her bank account between the demonetization period. Return of income for the said period AY-2017-18 was not filed. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued by the AO in response to which also no return was filed. The Ld. AO examined the impugned cash deposits by issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act. Before the Ld. AO the assesse informed that she is a software engineer having earned monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- per month till 2016. It was indicated by her that the said cash represented proceeds received from her husband, working at Dubai, through her father-in-law’s bank account. Not satisfied with assesse’s defense the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.10,08.500/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Ld. AO to extent of Rs.6,82,500/- and confirmed the addition of Rs.3,26,000/-. 3.0 Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assesse argued that the amount was received through some other relatives namely Shri Siva Kalai and Shri Mahalingam being mother and brother respectively. The Ld.DR informed that these are new set of facts introduced by the assesse and the Ld. AO has not had the opportunity of examining the same. Both the parties agreed :- 3 -: that the matter can be restored to the file of Ld. AO for examining the issue of Rs.3,26,000/- , de novo, in the light of evidences produced by the assesse. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we deem it fit to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld. AO in respect of the said impugned addition. The Ld. AO is required to give all necessary opportunities to the assesse before arriving at any conclusion and the assesse shall be required to comply with Ld. AO’s statutory notices. Any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. The grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 6th, September-2024.