CHETNA SUNDARAM,JANAK PURI DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE 70(1), DELHI

ITA 2512/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Chetna Sundaram against the order of the Ld. Addl. /JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata, which pertained to the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issues in the appeal included incorrect addition of income, improper calculation of tax and interest, and dismissal of the initial appeal by CIT(A) without proper consideration of the merits and evidence provided. The AO had added unexplained cash deposits and credit card payments as income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which the Assessee contested. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to lack of documentary evidence, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471523 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 2512/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2012-13 CHETNA SUNDARAM, C-2-D/62B, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI – 58 (PAN: ARJPS5577N) VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 70(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.03.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. Addl. /JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata dated 21.03.2024, relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following ground:- 1. Incorrect addition of income. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add or alter any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Improper calculation of tax and interest :- The calculation of tax and interest by the AO is incorrect and excessive. The AO has not considered the actual income and allowable deductions of the appellant, leading to an inflated tax liability. 4. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without proper consideration :- The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the merits of the case, the documentary evidence 2 | P a g e provided, and the factual inaccuracies in the AO’s assessment. This dismissal is unjust and requires reconsideration. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in her saving bank account HDFC Bank Ltd. However, source of the same remained unexplained though the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity to represent her case and to file source and nature of such cash deposit. Accordingly, this amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is held to be unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act and added as his income for the year. As per the information available in the AIR/CIB, it is observed that during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, the assessee had also made the payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs. 2,26,060/- through American Express Bank and amount of Rs. 3,45,560/- through HDFC bank. As mentioned above, the total amount of Rs. 5,71,620/- paid for credit bills by the assessee unexplained. Accordingly, this amount of Rs. 5,71,620/- is held to be unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act and added as his income for the year. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in the absence of documentary evidences. 4. Against the aforesaid order, Assessee is in appeal before me. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing. Hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 6. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. I find that in the grounds of appeal, it was the contention of the assessee that AO has not considered the actual income and allowable deductions of the assessee and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the merits of the case, the documentary evidence and the factual inaccuracies in the AO’s assessment. In view of above, and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee for which the Ld. DR has no objection. 3 | P a g e 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10/03/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR Bhatnagar Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "