SMT GIRIJA GOSWAMI, BHOPAL vs. ITO5 (2), BHOPAL

The assessee has raised following grounds as under:

Facts before us, as per AIR information generated through the system of the department, it was found that during F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee has made deposit of Rs.10,30,000/- in his saving bank account. However, as per available record the assessee has not filed any return of income for A.Y.2009-10. Therefore, after recording reasons under S.148(2) of the Act and getting approval from the competent authority under S.151 of the Act notice under S.148 of the Act dated 03.03.2016 was issued and properly served upon the assessee. But, pursuant to the notice, assessee has not filed any return for A.Y. 2009-10 within the date prescribed in the notice issued under S.148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under S.142(1) of the Act dated 14.07.2016 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the queries raised therein by 26.07.2016. But neither anyone attended nor any written submissions were filed before the AO. Thereafter, notices under S.142(1) of the Act dated 31.08.2016 and 29.09.2016 were issued in this behalf but the same were not complied [Smt. Girija Goswami vs. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - with. By virtue of order passed under S.127 of the Act dated 14.12.2016 passed by the PCIT-II, Bhopal the jurisdiction over the case was transferred from ITO-3(4), Bhopal to this office. On perusal of available case record of this assessee of A.Y. 2008-09, it was found that son of the assessee Shri Raghvendra Goswami claimed in his statement on oath dated 20.01.2016 that the assessee was expired on 23.06.2012 and declared her mother Smt. Girija Goswami as legal heir of the deceased assessee. But, no details were filed in defense and in support of her case. Hence, learned AO passed the order under s.144 of the Act made addition of Rs.10,30,000/-.

Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the learned CIT(A) and on behalf of Smt. Girija Goswami legal hear of Late Dwarka Prasad Goswami (deceased assessee), learned AR submitted following documents in support of the contentions: (i) Affidavit and copies of acknowledgment of ITR of Smt. Vibha Dubey; (ii) copies of Khasra, Rin Pustika, Bank statement of the deceased assessee, Death Certificate; (iii) copies of khasra, Rin Pustika, Death Certificate of Late Shri Rajaram Goswami. Learned AR submitted that in view of the above filed documents, it is proved that sufficient cash balance was with the assessee for depositing in the bank account. Learned CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that whatever details have been submitted before him, same were available with the assessee at the time of passing assessment order and refuse to admit the documents under Rule 46A, but he chosen to decide the appeal on the basis of bank statement only and he granted relief to the assessee for Rs.4 Lakhs and balance Rs.6,30,000/- was confirmed.

Now, the assessee came before us and she has taken ground that notice was issued to the deceased person and if a notice under S.148/147 of [Smt. Girija Goswami vs. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 4 - the Act has been issued to the deceased person and same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

We have given thoughtful consideration of the argument of the assessee. As in the present case, deceased assessee did not file any income tax return, the department came to know about the cash deposit only by way of AIR information generated through the system of the department and son of the deceased has categorically admitted before his AO that wife of the deceased person is legal heir of the deceased assessee. So, in such case, we do not find any support from the documents of the assessee. Therefore, same is dismissed.

Now, we come into the merits of the case. In this case on behalf of the assessee, learned AR filed documents before the learned CIT(A). He refused to admit the same under Rule 46A but chosen to decide the matter on the basis of bank statement and granted relief of Rs.6,30,000/- to the assessee.

We have heard both the parties. In our considered opinion, learned CIT(A) ought to have considered all the evidences and documents submitted on behalf of the assessee and not in piece meal. On one hand, learned CIT(A) has granted relief on the basis of bank statement submitted by the assessee and on the other hand, he did not admit the documents or affidavit under Rule 46A as he mentioned in this order that all the details were very much available at the time of the assessment order passed by the learned AO.

In view of above, we set aside this matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) who will admit the documents filed by the assessee under Rule 46A thereafter shall pass an order as per law.

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