HUMAIRA IFTIKHAR,JAWAHAR NAGAR SRINGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

ITA 667/ASR/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Humaira Iftikhar against the order of the ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was based on the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar. The primary contention revolves around the addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts attributed to the assessee, which the assessee claims do not belong to her but to her husband. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal found that the husband of the assessee, Dr. Mufti Mehmood, had been separately assessed and had provided explanations regarding the deposits, which were not considered by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360718 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Humaira Iftikhar, 472-C, Jawahar Nagar Near Masjit Usma Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir [PAN: ABHPI 9044G] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Tanveer Altaf Qadri, C.A. Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 21.04.2025 21.05.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.11.2023 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Srinagar dated 08.12.2019 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO 2. Condonation of delay:- It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belated by 333 days, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay by way of an affidavit, stating that the correspondence address to which notices were issued from the office of the ld. CIT(A) where not the addresss of the assessee. It is submitted that the actual address of correspondence was 472-C, Jawahar Nagar Near Masjid Usman, Srinagar, J & K-190008, which is matching with the supporting Aadhar card. He further submitted that the appellate order has not been served or issued in e-mail id and the assessee has not received the said appellate order within time and the assessee remained unaware of the existence of the order. Thereafter, subsequently, gathering information from the department, this appeal has been prepared and filed belatedly by 333 days which was not due to any willful disregard or any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee and he prayed for the delay to be condoned and admission of the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The ld. D.R. has no objection. 4. Considering the submissions in the affidavit, we condone the delay in absence of any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee and we admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: 3 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO “1. The Ld. A.O. has treated the cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 26,48,300 in the bank account bearing account number 1111040400002518 as unexplained although this bank account does not belong to the appellant. Further the Ld. A.O. has applied 8% of 2220852 which works out at Rs. 177668 in the same bank account which has also been treated as unexplained. The addition made is unjustified. 2. The Ld. A.O. has also presumed net profit rate of 8% on the deposits in other bank deposits to the tune of Rs. 6649477 and ascertained net profit of Rs. 531958 despite the fact that majority of these bank accounts does not belong to appellant. The addition made is unjustified 3. That the Ld. A.O. has erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment the assessment on the basis of assumptions and surmises and totally ignoring the facts of the case. 4. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in passing the order without giving opportunity of being beard. 5. That the impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 6. That the Appellant carves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. The facts emerging from the record are that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.33.57 lacs on account of unexplained cash being deposited in bank by the assessee during the financial year 2011-12. On the basis of information gathered the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 and in absence of any response from the assessee to various notices issued by the department an addition of Rs.28.25 lacs has been made to the total income as unexplained deposits in bank account and a further 4 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO amount of Rs.5.31 lacs has been added by applying a flat rate of 8% on total bank deposits, on A/c of business profits. 7. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC and the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal because of non-compliance on the part of the assessee to various notices issued on various dates of hearing and it is also seen that the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits. 8. The ld. AR of the assessee states that no notice of hearing has been issued in the e-mail id in Form 35 even though it is seen from the appellate order that the assesee has requested for an adjournment on one such date of hearing, which proves that the assessee has received the notice of hearing. However, the ld. AR pressed that one more opportunity should be allowed to the assessee to furnish all the particulars and to represent the case properly on merits. He further submitted that the bank account where cash has been deposited actually belongs to the husband of the assessee Dr. Mufti Mehmood and the sameis a joint account of the husband and wife. He further states that the entire deposits in the said account relates to the medical professional activities of the husband, who is running a medical clinic and pharmacy at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar and he submits that the said deposits are all disclosed in the hands of the husband under PAN: AGFPM 1257Q. 5 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO 9. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh verification. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the husband of the assessee Dr. Mufti Mehmood, is separately assess to tax and his assessment has also been completed for the assessment year 2012-13 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2019 where the explanations regarding the cash deposits made in saving bank account maintained with J &K Bank has been considered. As such, in the interest of justice, we find that all these materials and documentary evidences on record, has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) because the appeal has been disposed of on the ground of non compliance on the part of the assessee without any adjudication on merits of the case. As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits of the case on the ground contained in Form No. 35, after allowing a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (Notice to be issued as per provision of section 282 (read with rule 127 of I.T. Rule, 62). The assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences before the ld. first appellate authority and to fully co-operate in appeal proceedings. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 6 I.T.A. No. 667/Asr/2024 Humaira Iftikhar v. ITO 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 21.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order "