PRAVINA RAJENDRA SHAH, MUMBAI V. INCOMETAX OFFICER-33(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6/MUM/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Mrs. Pravina Rajendra Shah, against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, which upheld the addition of Rs.15,81,301 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had noted unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts during the demonetisation period post-November 8, 2016. The assessee's explanations regarding her income sources were not accepted by the AO due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond to notices. The Tribunal, finding the need for a factual verification, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300070 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.06/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pravina Rajendra Shah B-2-101 1 st Floor, Kamla Nagar, M. G. Road, Kandivali- West, Mumbai- 400067. बिधम/ Vs. ITO-33(2)(5) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BNQPS3396P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 03.11.2022 for AY. 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised a single issue challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs.15,81,301/- made by the AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). 2. None appeared for the assessee. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order since the assessee failed to comply with the three (3) notices issued by him. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the case on merits and has passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and not on merits. Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Anil Gupta ITA No.06/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Pravina Rajendra Shah 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO noted that the assessee Mrs. Pravina Rajendra Shah has not filed her return of income and since the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetisation period after 8 th Nov, 2016 to the tune of Rs.10,51,500/- in three (3) different bank accounts as referred to in the assessment order dated 08.12.2019 passed (u/s 144 of the Act) and balance amount credited in the bank account i.e. of Rs.5,30,301/-. According to the AO, since these credits have taken place during the demonetisation period, he show caused the assessee as to why the same should not be added u/s 69A of the Act (unexplained money). According to the AO, the assessee’s husband Mr. Rajendra Shah attended the office and furnished a paper book containing bank details and statement and a rough computation of income of the assessee. According to the AO, it was submitted before him that she is a house-wife and has an interest in cooking and by doing such an activity/cooking, she had made some income; and some income was generated by her handicapped unmarried daughter Ms. Dipti Shah (36 years) who is a trained beautician; and some money was found from the possession of her late mother who expired in the year 2015; so she had money from three (3) sources which she deposited in the bank during the demonetisation period. Even though, the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the AO, the AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash deposit and other credits reflected in the bank account of the assessee. According to the AO, no supporting evidences were furnished by the assessee during the assessments proceeding because of which he made ITA No.06/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Pravina Rajendra Shah 3 the additions of the entire case credit & deposit. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee only moved an application for adjournment and sought adjournment on Sep, 2022. Other than that the assessee did not bother to respond to the notices issued by the Ld CIT(A). Therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assesse exparte. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before this Tribunal. Even before this Tribunal, the assessee has not appeared even though the notice has been issued and served upon to the assessee. Be that as it may, this is an appeal wherein factual aspects need to be verified/looked into. The AO has passed best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act; and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order confirming the action of the AO. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, since the facts need to be brought out by the assessee before the AO regarding the cash deposit as well as the other credits reflected in the assessee’s bank account/three (3) bank account, taking in to consideration the aforesaid facts discussed (supra), in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is given to the assessee, therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and the assessment is restored back to the file of the AO for denovo assessment. The assessee is directed to file documents/explanation regarding the source of cash deposit and other credits in her bank- accounts during the year under consideration. And the AO to decide the same in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file documents/submissions for explaining the cash ITA No.06/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Pravina Rajendra Shah 4 deposit in her bank account and other credits found in her bank account. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 31/03/2023. Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 31/03/2023. Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai