Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 29.12.2022 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.
I have heard Smt. Neha Singh, the assessee appearing in person and Shri Om Parkash, learned Senior DR.
Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident individual. Based on AIR Information, the Assessing Officer found that in the previous year relevant assessment year under dispute, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.13,70,000 in a Saving Bank Account maintained with HDFC Bank. Since, the assessee had not filed any return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. In response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return of income on 04.12.2019 declaring income of Rs.1,84,954 by applying the provisions of section 44AD of the Act.
In course of assessment proceedings, on examining the bank statement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.9,42,500. When called upon to explain the source of cash deposits, she submitted that she had opening cash balance of Rs.2,66,000 and the balance cash deposits were out of prior withdrawal and deposits of small amounts from tuition income.
After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not accept assessee’s claim of opening cash balance of Rs.2,66,000. Further, he found that on 16.03.2012, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.4,50,000. Thus, he treated the aforesaid two amounts to be the income from unexplained source and added back the aggregate amount of Rs.7,16,000 to the income of the assessee.
Contesting the aforesaid addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. Noting that the assessee has applied for settlement of the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, whereas, neither the assessee filed Form No. 4 and Form No.5 nor they have been uploaded in the website of the department, the first appellate authority directed the Assessing Officer to call for the necessary evidences regarding settlement of dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Accordingly, he disposed of the appeal without deciding it on merits.
On a specific query being made, the assessee submitted before me that the settlement of disputed under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 failed, as, due to certain personal difficulties and unavoidable circumstances, she was unable to deposit the tax due under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Thus, she submitted that the appeal has to be decided on merits.
From the aforesaid discussion of facts, it is quite clear that assessee’s effort to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 ultimately did not fructify, for whatever may the reason. Whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals), anticipating that the dispute arising in the appeal will be settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, has not decided the appeal on merits.
In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to restore the issues to the file of the first appellate authority for adjudicating on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19thApril, 2023.