SHAUKATBANU SHAMSUDDIN SUNESARA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)*(2), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17/10/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the grounds as stated in the grounds of appeal, which is broadly with respect to confirming cash deposits of Rs.23,16,940/- in the Development Credit Bank assessed as undisclosed income.

2. During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Rajesh Shah, invited my attention to page-14 of the paper book, filed before this Tribunal, containing a letter dated 22/03/2013, addressed to the Assessing Officer, claimed to be duly received by him on 22/03/2013 itself. It was also pleaded that though this letter was handed over to the ld. Assessing Officer on 22/03/2013 but the assessment order was passed on 15/03/2013 in which the aforementioned letter was never considered. It was pleaded that this letter goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the appeal may be sent to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Om Prakash Meena, though defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) but had no objection if the letter of the assessee may be considered again.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in Shaukatbanu Shamsuddin Sunesara brief, are that there was an AIR information that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.23,16,940/- in the saving bank account (joint bank account) maintained with Development Credit Bank. The assessment in the case of the husband of the assessee Shri Samsuddin Jivan Sunesara was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) on 28/12/2011 on protective basis. The impugned amount was brought to tax in the hands of the husband of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources on protective basis and the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Pursuant to notices, served upon the assessee, on various occasions, the proceedings were attended and the requisite details were furnished. As per the Revenue, necessary details were not filed. However, in para 3 of the assessment order, it has been mentioned that requisite details were filed by the assessee, thus, the finding contained in the assessment order is itself contradictory. It is also noted that the letter dated 22/03/2013 (claimed to be received by the ld. Assessing Officer) available at page-14 of the paper book was never considered by the Assessing Officer as the assessment order was passed on 15/03/2013 itself. The affidavit filed by the assessee was also not considered. As per the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India only due taxes has to be levied/collected, therefore, without going into the merits of the appeal, I am of the view that the issue/issues requires fresh consideration, consequently, the ld. Assessing

Shaukatbanu Shamsuddin Sunesara Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee afresh and decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention here that due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in her support. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 22/06/2016.