SHWETA SOMANI,ALIRAJPUR vs. ITO, JHABUA

The AO in the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 has made the addition of Rs.60,01,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and also pleaded that peak credit should be taken instead of entire deposit in the bank account however, the assesse has not participated in the proceedings before the CIT(A) nor submitted any details or supporting evidence therefore, the appeal of the assesse was dismissed.

Before the Tribunal the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing the ex-parte order. He has pleaded that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to present its case and file the relevant details and evidences for verification regarding the source of deposits in the bank account. Hence, he has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after verification of the necessary details and evidences to be filed by the assesse.

On the other hand, ld. DR has no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after

We have considered rival submissions and careful perused the impugned orders of the authorities below. The AO has made addition of Rs.60,01,000/- on account of unexplained deposit in the bank account as the assessee has not produced relevant details and evidences specifically asked by the AO while issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The AO has recorded this non-compliance on behalf of the assesse in para 6.2 as under:

On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse in para 5.1 to 5.3 as under: “5.1. As per AIR information available on record, it was noticed that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 1,25,72,000/- in his saving bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Alirajpur and having business of sale and purchase of multi commodity exchange trading of Rs. 13,75,01,660/- during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011, relevant to the AY 2011-12. The AO found that the appellant did not file her return of Income for the AY 2011-12. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2018 after recording of the reasons u/s 148(2) of the IT Act. In response to the notice u/s 148 issued, the appellant did not file his return of Income within 30 days. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to State Bank of India, Alirajpur and the bank furnished the copy of statement of bank account of the appellant for the F.Y. 2010-11. The appellant had deposited total cash of Rs. 62,86,000/-in State Bank of India. In response to notices issued by the AO, the appellant explained she had earned income of Rs.3,78,304/-, which she had declared under Income Declaration scheme (IDS) u/s 183 of Finance Act 2016 and paid tax accordingly. The AO observed that declaration under IDS did not provide immunity from all other un-disclosed income which had not been disclosed in the scheme. The AO noted that the appellant failed to submit the details of the business along- with required information i.e. copy ledger of multi commodity transactions, details of sundry creditors, debtors, demat account etc. The AO concluded that the appellant failed to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.62,86,000/- in her bank account she had declared only Rs 2,85,000/- cash deposit in bank under the IDS scheme. The AO gave credit of Rs.2,85,000/- to the appellant and added the balance amount of Rs 60,01,000/- to the total income of the appellant. Order u/s 143(3)/147 was passed on 12.12.2018, assessing the income at Rs.60,01,000/- after addition of Rs.60,01,000/- on account of Unexplained Cash Deposit. Page 4 of 6

Thus, the contention of the assesse regarding peak credit should be taken instead of entire deposit was not accepted by the CIT(A) for want of relevant details. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the addition has been made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) for want of necessary details and supporting evidence we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice the assesse be granted one more opportunity to produce the necessary details and supporting evidence. Accordingly the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering details and supporting evidences to be filed by the ITANo.314/Ind/2023 Shweta somani assesse. Needless to say the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.