OTIBAI,DHAR vs. ITO , DHAR

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, इंदौर �यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.183/Ind/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Otibai, Income Tax Officer, 1 Yogamaya Main Gate Ke Pas, Dhar Ring Road, Vs. Sardarpur, Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AEJP06636D Assessee by S/Shri Pankaj Shah and Soumya Bumb, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated

28.07.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC), Delhi for A.Y.2012-13 which is

arising from the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act dated

15.12.2019.

of this appeal before this Tribunal. The application for condonation

ITA No183/Ind/2024 Smt. Otibai of delay has been submitted and the reason for the said delay is

that in Form 35 it was specifically mentioned that communication

should not be sent to e-mail however all notices of hearing were

sent on e-mail which prevented the assessee from appearing before

Ld. CIT(A) and assessee came to know about the impugned order on

a later date. This being the bonafide reason delay, if any in filing

the appeal may please be condoned. Ld. Departmental

Representative opposed the request. I however considering the

reasonable cause mentioned in the application for condonation of

delay and also citing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Collector, Land Acquisition V/s Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC

1353 wherein the Hon’ble court has laid down that in such matters

liberal approach should be adopted as ordinarily a litigant does not

stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and considering the ratio

of said Hon’ble Court’s judgment laid down that substantial justice

deserves to be preferred, I hereby condone the delay in filing the

appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication on

merits.

ITA No183/Ind/2024 Smt. Otibai 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in exparte dismissing the appeal of the Assessee and thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant prays that the said order be set aside to the CIT(A) for hearing on merits. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,25,350 under Section 69 A of the Act which is prayed to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the amount deposited in Shree Rajendra Suri Sakh Sahkarita Maryadit is related to sale of agricultural crop (tax free income). 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal

3.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee have raised additional ground

that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. A.O

erred in passing order in the name of the deceased without

identification number and therefore the order of Ld. CIT(A) is void.

However during the course of hearing when he was confronted that

the assessee do not have PAN and have not filed any Income Tax

Return, Ld. A.O has specific information about the cash deposit in

his bank account and there was no information provided by the

legal heir of the assessee informing about the death of the assessee

and nor legal heir of the deceased assessee had raised this issue

before Ld. A.O then Ld. Counsel for the assessee was unable to

ITA No183/Ind/2024 Smt. Otibai controvert, thereafter requested for not pressing the additional

ground. Accordingly additional ground raised is dismissed as NOT

PRESSED.

3.2 As far as the remaining grounds, though as many as 4

grounds have been raised but the sole grievance is the addition of

Rs.11,25,350/- made u/s 69A of the Act for the alleged unexplained

cash deposit in the saving bank account held in the name of

assessee.

assessee cultivates Rabi and Khariff in 4.025 ha of irrigated

agriculture land at village Ringnod and the alleged deposits are

mainly from the agriculture produce and also there are regular cash

withdrawals which have also been utilized for making further

deposits. However Ld. Counsel for the assessee was fair enough to

accept that the assessee have not made any compliance before the

lower authorities and therefore prayed that the matter may be

restored to the file of jurisdictional A.O for carrying out necessary

adjudication for the issue of alleged cash deposit at Rs.11,25,350/-

after providing opportunity to the assessee to furnish necessary

evidence.

ITA No183/Ind/2024 Smt. Otibai 5. Ld. Departmental Representative did not object to this

request.

before me. The only issue is that the assessee failed to explain the

source of cash deposits of Rs.11,25,349/- in his bank account,

which resulted in the impugned addition. Though Ld. Counsel for

the assessee has claimed that assessee is an agriculturist and sale

proceeds from agriculture produce has been utilized for making

alleged deposits, however considering the fact that legal heir of the

deceased assessee did not appear before both the lower authorities

and there being no opportunity with the revenue authorities to

verify the said claim. I being fair to both the parties and in the

interest of justice restore the issue raised on merits before me

regarding source of cash deposit at Rs.11,25,350/- to the file of

jurisdictional A.O who shall provide reasonable opportunity to the

legal heir of the assessee to furnish necessary details of having

agriculture income and other source for alleged cash deposit so that

Ld. A.O can decide the issue in accordance with law. The legal heir

of the assessee is also directed to remain vigilant in appearing

ITA No183/Ind/2024 Smt. Otibai before Ld. A.O and no adjournment should be sought until and

unless warranted for reasonable cause. Thus Grounds of appeal

No.1 to 3 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.08.2024.

Sd/-

(MANISH BORAD) Accountant Member

Indore, 09.08.2024 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore