SARADA DEVI MADDI,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, WARANGAL

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her original return of income on 31.03.2018 admitting total income of Rs.16,97,870/- and also filed revised return of income on 06.06.2019 admitting total income of Rs.19,79,400/-. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ( “the Act”) was issued on 14.08.2018 to the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2019 making addition of Rs.1,29,48,084/- u/s 68 of the Act contending that the assessee did not submit the required documents/evidence to prove the source of cash deposited in her bank accounts.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Ld. AO due to non-submission of required documents/evidence to prove the source of cash deposited in her bank accounts.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had deposited the cash in her bank accounts from the sale proceeds of the gold. The Ld. AR also submitted that the facts and documents related to the purchase and sale were in the knowledge of her deceased husband. During the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO, her husband died due to heart attack and due to sudden death of her husband, the assessee got disturbed and hence, could not file the necessary documents related to purchase and sale of gold to justify the source of cash deposited in her bank account. During the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee was able to collect some documents and submitted them before the Ld. CIT(A). However, due to lack of sufficient documentary evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. By consolidating all the grounds, Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all the necessary documents related to purchase and sale of gold to justify the source of cash deposited in her bank account and conduct the proceedings diligently and get the matter disposed of on merits.

Per contra, Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. She opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the orders of the revenue authorities that in spite of many opportunities given, the assessee failed to substantiate her case by providing necessary documentary evidence, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. From the submission made by the Ld. AR it is clear that the assessee could not furnish the necessary documents related to purchase and sale of gold to justify the source of cash deposited in her bank account due to sudden demise of her husband. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the failure on the part of the assessee was out of the control of the assessee and was not intentional. Further, it is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now the assessee is ready to produce all such documentary evidence in support of her contentions and get the matter disposed of on merits. The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given to the assessee and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.

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