GAURI CHETAN KAWADE,GHORPADI GAON, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALISBURY PARK

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs.1,47,67,000/-.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has not filed her return of income. On verification of AIMS data, it was seen that the assessee has deposited cash in her bank account to the tune of Rs.1,47,67,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer called for the bank statement and other details from the assessee. Since there was no response and since no return was filed, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee by recording reasons as per the provisions of section 147 and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. Again, there was no response from the side of the assessee to such notice issued u/s.148. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. Again, there was no response from the side of the assessee. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,47,67,000/-.

In appeal, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Learned counsel for the assessee referring to page 24 of the paper book submitted that the bank account referred to by the Assessing Officer is a Joint account and the First holder is her Husband Mr. Chetan Suresh Kawade. Referring to page 67 of the paper book, he submitted that the Axis Bank Account referred to by the Assessing Officer has been reflected in the balance sheet of her husband who carries on business under the name and style ‘Shree Associates’. He submitted that since the cash deposited in the bank account belongs to a concern owned by her husband which has already been disclosed to the Department in the return of income already filed by him, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. He submitted that despite giving all the details, the CIT(A)/NFAC, without considering the same properly has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC be set-aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed.

The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that despite opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file any return of income nor responded to the notices issued u/s.148 or 142(1) of the Act. Since no details were filed, the Assessing Officer made the addition which has been upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, the action of the CIT(A)/NFAC should be upheld. In his alternate contention, he submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material on record. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.1,47,67,000/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not make any submission explaining the source of such cash deposits in the bank account. We find before the CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has categorically stated that the so-called deposits in bank account do not relate to her which has been recorded by the CIT(A)/NFAC in para 4 of the order and which reads as under :

Despite this, the CIT(A)/NFAC without going through the details filed by the assessee sustained the addition. A perusal of page 67 of the paper book shows that the bank account namely Axis Bank, B.T. Kawade Road- 9679 has been reflected in the current assets of Shree Associates. The scanned copy of the same is as under :

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.