ANUSHA PAGADALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 18/01/2024 passed by the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur, (“Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)”), in the case of Anusha Pagadala (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal.

4. Assessee, therefore, filed this appeal. At the time of hearing, learned AR, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the Revenue authorities erred in applying the provisions of section 69A of the Act and reaching a conclusion that the amount under addition is unexplained and also submitted that the learned Addl./JCIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and passing an ex parte order only on the basis of inadvertent non-compliance on the part of the assessee, without considering the case on merits and documentary evidences available on record. It was further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned Addl./JCIT(A) ought to have noticed that the assessee received money from rent and also possessed accumulated savings, which in turn were deposited in the bank account and the same is supported by the returns already filed by the assessee and thus, the initial burden of providing the source of cash deposits is established.

5. It is the contention of learned AR that the Revenue authorities ought to have appreciated that the assessee has no other source of income other than rental income and past savings and thus the expression ‘may’ used in Section 69A of the Act requires a judicious approach before concluding. Learned AR further submitted that the Revenue authorities ought to have noticed that the cash deposits having been made by the assessee on or before the month of November, 2016, the higher tax rate of 60% provided under section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable in view of the fact that the said amendment received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 15/12/2016, whereas the impugned transaction took place prior to the said date and thus, the tax rate would be 30% as per un- amended provisions of section 115BBE read with section 294 of the Act.

6. Learned AR submitted that the assessee entrusted the working of handling of the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) to an accountant, though the accountant filed the appeal wherein he gave his personal mail-id for communication, the assessee was under the impression that the accountant would take care of the notices and replies, but the accountant neither responded to the notices nor responded to the calls due to which the assessee had to contact another accountant in the month of February, 2024. He further submitted that the assessee subsequently came to know that since the assessee did not respond to the notices, the appeal was decided ex parte on 18/01/2024 and it is only because the assessee was not aware of the notices as her accountant did not inform the same the assessee could not present her case properly before the learned CIT(A) and finally prayed that in the interest of justice, given an opportunity, assessee is ready to produce all the evidence/relevant material before the learned Assessing Officer and pursue the case diligently since factual verification will help to decide the issue in an effective way. Assessee filed an affidavit to this effect.

7. Learned DR vehemently opposed the request made on behalf of the assessee on the ground that more than sufficient opportunity was granted by the Revenue authorities, but without availing the same, it is not open for the assessee now to seek one more opportunity. According to learned DR, if such a request is granted, it would lead to never ending process and contended that in the absence of any evidence what-so-ever, the authorities are justified in making the addition made.