Smt. Nirmalaben Lalitbhai Vadalia, Rajkot V. The ITO Ward-2 (2) (5), Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 331/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1434 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Judicial Member Nirmalaben Lalitbhai Vadalia Flat No. 434, Wing-4, Nand Parisar, B/h. Suncity, Opp. Balmukund Society, Sadhvasvani Road, University Road, Rajkot PAN: AAWPV1661N (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward- 2(2)(5), Rajkot (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 05-06-2024 Date of pronouncement : 26-06-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : DINESH MOHAN SINHA, J.M.:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short ‘the NFAC’), u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) dated 03.03.2023 for assessment year 2017-18. ITA No. 331/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 I.T.A No. 331/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Nirmalaben Lalitbhai Vadalia Vs. ITO 2 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned A.O. in making addition of cash deposits of Rs.28,00,000/- treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order violating the principles of natural justice. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a state government employee (Assistant primary teacher) deriving salary income and filed her return of income on 09.07.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,58,900/- The case was selected for LIMITED SCRUTINY for the reason "large value of cash deposits during demonetization period". An assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.11.2019 was framed with an addition of Rs 28,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A. Income assessed at Rs. 33,58,900/-. 4. In assessment proceedings, assessee has produced copy of Bank statement from 20.10.2011 to 31.12.2017. Assessee has also produced cash Book. On verification by Ld. ITO, it is seen that salary received by assessee was deposited in bank account every month and assessee has withdrawn salary every month. Assessee has submitted that assessee had withdrawn PF amount of Rs.9,30,000/- on 13.4.2015 from Bank for the purpose of marriage of Son, however it is not done, the same amount was remained unutilized and she has deposited the same during the demonetization period. I.T.A No. 331/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Nirmalaben Lalitbhai Vadalia Vs. ITO 3 5. Assessee has submitted reply wherein it was submitted that assessee is a Government Employee (Assistant Primary Teacher) servicing since October- 1985 and earning salary income. Assessee has no other source of income. That assessee has withdrawn of salary received from Government and also withdrawn from Provident Fund account maintained by the Government. An amount of Rs.9,30,000/-. That assessee has deposited Rs. 28,00,000/- in the bank and made an FD of the similar amount. 6. The reply of the assessee is general in nature and not connected to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, needs no rebuttal. In view of the above, it is very clear that the cash deposits made to the tune of Rs 28,00,000/- represents unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the IT Act. 7. Subject to the above remarks and from data made available on records, the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration is computed as under:- Income as per the ROI Rs. 5,58,900/- Add:- Unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A Rs. 28,00,000/- Total Income Rs. 33,58,900/- 8. That the assessee challenged the validity of the order dated 23.11.2019 of the Ld. ITO by moving an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal with the following observations: 7.8. In view of the above, even after providing adequate opportunities during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has failed to submit written submissions along with documentary evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence, I don't find any fault with the order of the Ld. AO in making addition of cash I.T.A No. 331/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Nirmalaben Lalitbhai Vadalia Vs. ITO 4 deposits to the extent of Rs. 28,00,000/- on account of unexplained money. Accordingly, addition made by the Ld. AO is hereby confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed for the AY 2017-18 is dismissed. 9. That the assessee is in appeal before us, Ld. A.R. submitted that the adjournment application dated 14.07.2023 was moved before the Ld. CIT(A) on the designated website of the Income Tax Department, the same request was denied by Ld. CIT(A). Hence no proper and reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee and further prayed for one more opportunity to provide for hearing before Ld.CIT(A). 10. On the other hand Ld. D.R. submitted that this notices has been sent to the assessee but of the time adjournment was sought by the Ld. A.R. The Ld. CIT(A) observed as follows: 4.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant responded and requested for adjournment for all the five notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act, out of six notices issued till date. In view of this, it is clear that the appellant is habituated in requesting adjournment for 15 to 30 days in response to every notice and not submitting any supporting documentary evidence in support of her claim. Therefore, I am declined to give anymore further adjournments in this case. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record. It is noted that several notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) but the only compliances by filing an application of adjournment. However in first notice, the written submission was filed. This court observed that the non cooperative attitude of the assessee. The assessee is not complying with the terms of notice for this negligent action, a cost of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the assessee and to be deposited with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Bar I.T.A No. 331/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Nirmalaben Lalitbhai Vadalia Vs. ITO 5 Association). The assessee had deposited and receipt place on record. Therefore we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present its case before Ld. CIT(A) and remanded back to the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving an opportunity to be heard and the same assessee is further directed to cooperate and comply with the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in this mater. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26-06-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (ARJUN LAL SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot : Dated 26/06/2024 TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Rajkot