RASHMIDEVI PUGALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

The grounds raised in the appeal are as under:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the Order Passed by Ld AO making addition to the tune of Rs.17,443/- under the head Income from Other Sources.”

Only argument/contention made before me was with regard to the issue raised in ground no.2 being addition made on account of amount found deposited in the bank account of the assessee, amounting in all to Rs.26,04,838/-.

At the outset itself, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that his solitary plea before the Tribunal was that the matter be restored back to the AO for reconsideration. The reasons, he pointed out was that, both before the AO and the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had not come present and both the orders, therefore, were passed ex parte; that therefore, no explanation for the source of amounts found in the bank accounts of the assessee could be given. The ld.counsel for the assessee fairly stated that there were no plausible reasons with the assessee for not appearing before the Revenue authorities, except for the fact that she was a lady who had never had anything to do with laws relating to taxation of incomes having no source of income warranting filing of return of income, and therefore, probably could make no sense of notices issued to her by the department. The ld.counsel for the assessee pleaded that the assessee to be excused for her non-cooperative attitude before the Revenue authorities and be allowed a chance to explain the case.

The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee is now in the possession of all the evidences with regard to the explanation of the same, and furnished the same before the Tribunal by way of additional evidences, and also in tabular form mentioning all the evidences for explanation of the source of cash deposits. He therefore pleaded that if the assessee is not given a fair chance, it would result in the assessee being liable to pay tax on amounts which are not even her income, which would be grossly unjustified. The PB was filed before me containing a table of all the credits in the bank account for which the assessee was now in position to explain the source along with evidences available with the assessee. PB consists of 41 pages.

The ld.DR vehemently opposed another opportunity being granted to the assessee.

Having heard contentions of both the parties, I am of the view that the assessee be given an another opportunity to explain her case, more particularly, taking note of the fact that the addition to her income includes that on account of banking transaction entries in her account which undeniably are from disclosed sources which only need corroboration. The assessee apparently is now in possession of all the evidences. No doubt, the assessee has been careless in not appearing before the authorities below, but at the same time, this careless attitude of the assessee does not in any way justify taxing deposits which the assessee is now in a position to explain the source of. But at the same time, her non cooperative attitude in the first round before Revenue authorities cannot be condoned without imposing a cost for the same, since on account of this attitude of the assessee, precious time of the Revenue authorities as also the Tribunal has been wasted.

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