Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1086 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-03-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
22-03-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
23-01-2023
Judgement Text
P a g e | 1 Riya Sunil Jain Vs. The ITO, Ward 6(2)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 229/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2017-18) Riya Sunil Jain 1114/1115, Clover Regency, Ramji Ashar Lane, Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400077 Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(2)(1) Room No. 510, 5 th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: BCEPJ4734M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Priyanshi Desai Respondent by : C.T. Mathews Date of Hearing 23.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The solitary ground of appeal of the assesse is directed against the NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,45,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account by the assesse as unexplained money. 2. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,20,300/- was filed on 31.07.2017. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.09.2018. During the course of assessment the A.O noticed from the data collected from the bank that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.2,45,000/- in bank account maintained with Bank of India Ghatkopar East branch. During the course of assessment the assessee P a g e | 2 Riya Sunil Jain Vs. The ITO, Ward 6(2)(1) explained that she has received cash from conducting tuition classes. The assessee has submitted the supporting details as asked vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act relating to detail of tuition classes vouchers/receipts and copy of cash book maintained by the assessee etc. However, the AO noticed that out of the cash deposited the assessee has transferred amount of Rs. 2 lac to M/s Rajual Jewellers on 21.02.2017 and also noticed further transactions with the said jewellers. Therefore, the A.O has come to the conclusion that cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee has no connection with tuition income received by her. Therefore, the AO treated the cash deposited during the demonetization period appearing in the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on the merit and dismiss the same on the ground that assessee has not attended the hearing in spite of issuing 4 notices on different dates. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceedings before me the ld. Counsel contended that assesse has earned tuition fees by providing tuition to various students and received cash in consideration of the same. It is also submitted that supporting, account books, relevant vouchers and the documentary evidences were not considered during the course of assessment proceedings by the A.O. In this regard I observe that ld. CIT(A) ought to have consider the material on record for adjudicating the issue contested in the appeal on merit. Section 250(6) contemplates that the first appellate authority would determine point in dispute and therefore, record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. Therefore, I restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on merit after affording opportunity P a g e | 3 Riya Sunil Jain Vs. The ITO, Ward 6(2)(1) to the assesse. The assesse is also directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.03.2023 Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 31.03.2023 Rohit: PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.
AI Insights
The case involves Riya Sunil Jain, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs.2,45,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, attributed to cash deposits in her bank account during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had initially treated these deposits as unexplained, despite the appellant's claim that they were proceeds from tuition fees. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without merit consideration due to the appellant's non-attendance at hearings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the documentary evidence provided by the appellant and restored the case for a detailed examination on merits.
