KASREE DEVI,MAWANA MEERUT V. ITO WARD-1(1)(3), AYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT

ITA 1019/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kasree Devi against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs. 60,38,500 to her income for the assessment year 2017-18. This amount represented cash deposits made during the demonetization period, which the Assessing Officer added under section 69A, considering them unexplained. The appellant argued that a substantial portion of this amount was declared under the PMGKY 2016, and taxes were duly paid. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, including the PMGKY declaration and tax payments, ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the addition constituted double taxation and was contrary to the provisions of the PMGKY 2016.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30459 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Sourabh Agarwal vs DCIT, Prisha Pearl (INDIA) Private Limited vs ITO, Nadimuthupathar Sundarapandian Elavarman vs ACIT, Smt. Uma Agrawal vs I.T.O, Marvel Industries Ltd vs DCIT, Pawan Kumar Singhal vs ACIT, Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel vs DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 250; 43; 69; 69A; 20

Judgement Text

"1 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1019/DEL/2024 [Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kasree Devi, 172, Indera Nagar, Munna Lal, Mawana, Meerut-250401. PAN: BAGPD 3236 C Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Meerut. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Piyush Agarwal, CA Respondent by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 07.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 10.10.2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31.01.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the CIT Appeal is erred not accepting the Ground raised by the assessee that Ld Assessing Officer is not justified to make the addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the Appellant declared the entire 2 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 Cash Deposit in Demonetization period under Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited the entire Tax Deposit the entire Tax Liability as per the Scheme. 2. That CIT Appeal is erred in not invoking section 250(4) and (6) and Rule 46A(4) suo-moto in non verifying from the AO the authenticity of self explanatory/ specific issue as per Ground No. 1 raised before him that whether the assessee actually opted Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited tax and FDR and Form No 1 and 2 under PMGKY 2016 was issued to assessee or not, in fact the AO was aware about the declaration made by assessee in PMGKY 2016 before passing the order of CIT Appeals, So on the basis of facts of the case and for the want of justice to a super senior citizen, the addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT Appeal should be deleted.” 2. The present appeal of the assessee has been filed on 5.3.2024 against the order dated 31.01.2023, thus barred by limitation. The assessee has filed an application, seeking condonation of delay and reiterated the submissions as made in the application dated 5.3.2024 seeking condonation of delay. 3. Learned DR opposed the submissions and submitted that there is no reasonable cause for condoning the delay. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. For the reasons stated in the condonation application and looking to the facts that the assessee is a super senior citizen, aged about 83 years and was not regular tax payer, taking a liberal view as no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned, either it would sub-serve the interests of 3 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 substantial justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. For the sake of clarity the submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: “The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order passed by CIT(A), NFAC dt 30.01.2023 u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-2018, upholding the addition made by AO of Rs.60,38,500/- on account of cash deposited during demonetization period. As advised by the appellant, we beg to submit as under: - That the brief facts are as under: - 1. That the appellant is an individual aged about 83 years and has filed the Income Tax Return of AY 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 vide ack. No. 541076650290318 declaring income of Rs. 64,380/- 2. That During the demonetization period appellant had total cash deposit in bank account of Rs.60,38,500 (Rs. 2,40,000/- old savings/stridhan + Rs 57,98,500 declared under PMGKY 2016). Appellant had past saving of 2,40,000 as Stridhan as mentioned in The Speech of Hon'ble PM also supported by SOP issued by CBDT and rest cash deposit Rs 57,98,500 was declared as Undisclosed Income in Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana 2016. 3. As per the scheme lax Rs. 28,93,451/- 1.e. 49.9% on Rs 57,98,500 was deposited on 04.1.2017 and 25% bank deposit i.e. 14,49,625/- was made on 31.03.2017 as required by PMGKY 2016, the declaration vide FORM 1 was filed on 08.04.17 by the appellant and Certificate vide Form 2 was issued by PCIT, Meerut on 21.04.2017. 4. That the additions made u/s 69A by the Ld AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT Appeals for Cash deposited during the demonetization which has been already disclosed under the PMGKY 2016 tantamount to double taxation and is in contrary to the provision of the PMGKY 2016. 4 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 The following grounds of appeal have been taken up for your kind adjudication:- ➤ Grounds Raised Before CIT(A) and Now Raised before ITAT: 1. That the CIT Appeal is erred not accepting the Ground raised by the assesse that Ld Assessing Officer is not justified to make the addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the Appellant declared the entire Cash Deposit in Demonetization period under Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited the entire Tax Deposit the entire Tax Liability as per the Scheme. ➤ Additional Grounds Raised first time before ITAT: 2. That CIT Appeal is erred in not invoking section 250(4) and (6) and Rule 46A(4) suo-moto in non verifying from the AO the authenticity of self explanatory / specific issueas per Ground No. 1 raised before him that whether the assessee actually opted Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited tax and FDR and Form No 1 and 2 under PMGKY 2016 was issued to assessee or not, in fact the AO was aware about the declaration made by assessee in PMGKY 2016 before passing the order of CIT Appeals, So on the basis of facts of the case and for the want of justice to a super senior citizen, the addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT Appeal should be deleted. SUBMISSIONS of Ground No.1 Grounds Raised Before CIT(A) and Now Raised before ITAT: Ground No.1 1. That the CIT Appeal is erred not accepting the Ground raised by the assesse that Ld Assessing Officer is not justified to make the addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the Appellant declared the entire Cash Deposit in Demonetization period under Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited the entire Tax Deposit the entire Tax Liability as per the Scheme. ➤ That the appellant had saving bank account No. 4269101004157 with Canara Bankduring AY 2017-2018 (attached as Ann. 45 to 48) That during demonetization Cash Deposit in Canara Bank is as under :- 5 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 S.No. Date Amount (Rs.) Remarks 1 19.11.2016 2,40,000/- Old savings/stridhan 2 22.12.2016 30,50,000/- Declared under PMGKY 2016 3 26.12.2016 27,48,500/- Declared under PMGKY 2016 TOTAL 60,38,500/- CANARA BANK Summary of FY 2016-2017 PARTICULARS DR CR BALANCE OPENING BAL. 4,317.00 Rd Deposit 5,000 INTEREST Received on SB a/c 6,205.00 RD Mature 6,267.76 CASH DEPOSIT-2.11.16 5,000 CASH DEPOSIT-19.11.16 2,40,000.00 CASH DEPOSIT-22.12.16 30,50,000.00 CASH DEPOSIT-26.12.16 27,48,500.00 NEFT TO CA MAYANK CHAUHAN for TAX & FDR 45,28,875.00 BANK CHARGES 92.00 FD in CANARA BANK 25,00,000.00 FD REEDEMED CANARA BANK 10,00,000.00 NEFT from old CA to refund FDR Amount to be deposited in PMGKY 2016 14,50,000.00 RTGS to CA Anupam Sharma for FDR deposit in PMGKY- 2016 14,49,625.00 CLOSING BAL. 26,697.76 ➤ That the AO has made addition of entire cash deposit of Rs. 60,38,500/-in bank account u/s 69A and CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 ➤ That as per fact of the case Rs.57,98,500/-(Rs.60.38,500/- less Rs. 2,40,000/- out of her old savings/stridhan) declared in Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited taxes, made FDR thereafter Income Tax Department issued Form No 1 and 2 under PMGKY 2016. ➤ That as per PMGKY 2016 scheme Tax Rs. 28,93,451/- i.e. 49.9% on Rs 57,98,500 was deposited on 04.1.2017 and 25% bank deposit i.e. 14,49,625/- was made on 31.03.2017. ➤ That the declaration vide FORM 1 was filed on 08.04.17 and Certificate vide Form 2 was issued by PCIT, Meerut on 21.04.2017. A- Submission Regarding addition of Rs.57,98,500/-(Total addition Rs.60,38,500/-less Rs. 2,40,000/-out of her old savings) : - That the appellant opted PMGKY-2016 scheme and declare undisclosed income as cash deposited in CANARA BANK a/c of Rs.57,98,500/- and paid required tax @ 49.9% and deposit in FDR 25% of undisclosed income, PMGKY-2016 scheme was duly followed and after filing form 1 department issued Form 2. (attached as Ann. 43 to 44) As per circular No. 43 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 for PMGKY-2016 (attached as Ann. 58-62) it is mentioned that :- Effect of valid Declaration 11. Where a valid declaration as detailed about has been made, the following consequences will follow a. The amount of undisclosed income declared shall not be included in the total income of the declarant under the Income- tax Act for any assessment year; That the addition of cash deposit in bank account of Rs.57,98,500/- is not sustainable because :- ➤ Addition is in volition of clause 11(a) of CBDT circular No. 43 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 for PMGKY-2016. ➤ Addition caused Double Taxation because appellant alreadt paid tax @ 49.9% on declare undisclosed income. 7 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 B-Submission Regarding addition of Rs.2,40,000/- deposit out of her old savings/stridhan (Total addition Rs.60,38,500/- less Rs. Rs.57,98,500/- discussed in para A above) : - In respect to deposit of Rs. 2,40,000/- it is submitted that the deposits made in the bank account were below Rs 5,00,000/-, which was deposited out of her old savings. That CBDT issued INSTRUCTION NO.3/2017 [F.NO.225/100/2017/ITA-II], DATED 21-2- 2017- TO BE FOLLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICERS IN VERIFICATION OF CASH TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO DEMONETISATION (attached as Ann. 63 to 69) We are reproducing the relevant extract as under :- ANNEXURE Source Specific General Verification Guidelines 1. 1. Cash out of earlier income or savings 1.1 In case of an individual (other than minors) not having any business income, no further verification is required to be made if total cash deposit is up to 2.5 lakh. In case of taxpayers above 70 years of age, the limit is Rs. 5.0 lakh per person. Thesource of such amount can be either household savings/ savings from past income or amounts claimed to have been received from any of the sources mentioned in Paras 2 to 6 below. Amounts above this cut- off may require verification to ascertain whether the same is explained or not. The basis for verification can be income earned during past years and its source, filing of ROI and income shown therein, cash withdrawals made from accounts etc....\" That the addition of cash deposit in bank account of Rs.2,40,000/- is not sustainable because :- As per INSTRUCTION NO.3/2017 [F.NO.225/100/2017/ITA-II], DATED 21-2-2017 the appellant who was more than 70 years old at the time of demonetization allowed to deposit 5 lakh rupees as household savings/ savings from past income but appellant only deposit Rs. 2,40,000/-as household savings/savings from past income. Reliance has been placed on the following Judgments: 8 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 1. In the case of SourabhAgarwalvs DCIT [ITA NO. 962/DEL/2022] where ITAT DELHI on 02.11.2022 heldat page no 40 & 41 in para 20 & 21 that: 20. Basis the facts discussed elsewhere show that the assessee has made a valid declaration under the PMGKY Scheme, 2016 and has duly paid taxes/penalty and has also deposited requisite amount under the PMGKY Scheme, 2016. By no stretch of imagination provisions of section 69A can be applied on the aforementioned facts. Therefore, the entire addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) do not hold any water and deserve to be deleted. 21. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition made u/s 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposit in the bank account. 2. In the case of Prisha Pearl (INDIA) Private Limited, vsITO [ITA No.397/Ind/2018] where ITAT HYDERABAD on 22.03.2024 held that: …. 6.1. Additionally, it was also mentioned in the order of Id. CIT(A) that the total cash deposits made by the assessee for the year under consideration was bifurcated into three heads, namely before the announcement of demonetization, cash deposits made during the demonetization, and after the first of January 2017. The assessee also declared an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) during the demonetization period.... 8.2. The Assessing Officer though had made the addition of Rs.69,44,634/- however, he failed to take note of the amount received by the assessee through the banking channels as mentioned in the table reproduced above. The above amount received through banking channels is required to be reduced from the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Further, the amount of Rs. 36,00,244/- was deposited in cash in the bank account and already taken into account while filing the return of income is also required to be deducted. Further, the amount of Rs. 14,30,777/- being the opening cash balance along with Rs.2,00,000/- which was declared by the assessee towards Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana are also required to be reduced from the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A). Thus, the remaining amount which remained unexplained would be (Rs.69,44,634/- Rs.36,00,244 Rs. 9 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 14,30,777/- Rs.58,54,429/- Rs. 10,90,205/-)...\" (Rs.6,23,408/- Rs.2,00,000/-) = Rs.69,44,634 8.3-According to us, the said amount of Rs.10,90,205/- is required to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee and the remaining amount is required to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 3. In the case of NadimuthupatharSundarapandian Elavarmanvs. ACITreported on [2021] 125 taxmann.com 165 (Madras)- HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. on 09.12.2020 held that: \"...3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order on the following grounds:- (a) The respondent has violated the principles of natural justice by not affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner while passing the impugned re-assessment order. (b) No personal hearing was granted to the petitioner as stipulated under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (c) The respondent has failed to take note of the fact that on receipt of the notice dated 2-3-2017 from the respondent, the petitioner has opted to take the benefit of the Pradhan Mantri triGaribKalyan Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme, 2016, on 31-3- 2017 itself. Therefore, the impugned re-assessment proceedings for taking the cash deposit as an unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is void abnitio, illegal and also arbitrary. 7. Admittedly, as seen from the impugned assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has not participated in the said proceedings and the order is in the nature ofex parte assessment order. The grounds raised by the petitioner, namely, the cash amount of a sum of Rs. 82,29,000/- deposited under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme, 2016, on 31-3- 2017 has not been taken into consideration under the impugned assessment order. It is the contention of the petitioner that since he has has availed the benefit of Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme, 2016, the cash amount cannot be treated as an unexplained money under section 69 (A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\" 10 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 4. In the case of Smt. Uma Agrawalvs I.T.O [ITA No. 35/Agr/2021] where ITAT AGRA on18.06.2021 held that: \"29. In our opinion assessee had duly explained the source of deposit i.e previous years saving and we have no hesitation to accept the same, as it would been presumed that this small amount of Rs 2,21, 000/ would have been accumulated or saved by her from various activities undertaken by her for and on behalf of family in last many years. Further as mentioned herein above, in the decision of Kirti (supra), women per say cannot be said to be not having income from any activities, as they are presumed to always been doing economic activities in the family for many years, hence in our view the assessee had duly explained the source of her investment. Therefore no additions can be made by lower authority. Further even if we ignore the explanation, for the sake of argument, then also it is for the assessing officer to bring on record some cogent evidence to prove that the amount deposited in the bank was undisclosed income arising from the business or from any other activities. No evidence has been brought on record by the lower authorities. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 103 Taxman 382 (SC) 30. The word \"may\" had been used by the statute under section 69A, as had been used by the statute under section 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961, therefore applying the same analogy as laid down by SC in the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan(supra), we are of the opinion that the amount deposited by the assessee during the demonetisation. Cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Hence the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 31. We may clarify that this decision may be treated as precedent in respect to proceedings arising out of the cash deposit made by the housewives during the demonetisation scheme 2016, only up to the limit of Rs 2.5 lakhs only 32. Lastly We record our appreciation for contribution made by ShManuj Sharma Adv in adjudication of this appeal. 33. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed Announced in open court on 18th June 2021... ➤ Additional Grounds Raised first time before ITAT: 11 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 2. That CIT Appeal is erred in not invoking section 250(4) and (6) and Rule 46A(4) suo-moto in non verifying from the AO the authenticity of self explanatory / specific issueas per Ground No. 1 raised before him that whether the assessee actually opted Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited tax and FDR and Form No 1 and 2 under PMGKY 2016 was issued to assessee or not, in fact the AO was aware about the declaration made by assessee in PMGKY 2016 before passing the order of CIT Appeals, So on the basis of facts of the case and for the want of justice to a super senior citizen, the addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT Appeal should be deleted. That as per the case: The appellant had raised the below Ground before CIT(A) (Attached as Ann. 10 to 11):- “… Ld Assessing Officer is not justified to make the addition u/s 115BBE of the Income TaxAct 1961 as the Appellant declared the entireCash Deposit in Demonetization period underincome Declaration Scheme 2016 and deposited the entire Tax Deposit the entire Tax Liability as per the Scheme. 2. Appellant Seek the Stay of Demand as the entire tax liability has been deposited during the Income disclosure Scheme 2016” That the above ground itself explanatory and it was clearly mentioned that the assessee had opted for the Income declaration scheme 2016. However the Ld. CIT while adjudicating the matter has only given the reason below: (Attached as Ann. 5 to 9) ...5.1 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant nas only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated at table at para no. 4.1.1. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. Even the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-compliance on the part of the appellant. It can be safely presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reasons to interfere with 12 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 the order of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed. For Ready reference Section 250(4) & 250(6) is reproduced as under: 250 (4): The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the [Commissioner (Appeals). 250/6) The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals or the commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. ➤ That the Ld. CIT(A) had neither commented on self explanatory ground raised by the appellant that appellant opted Income Declaration Scheme. ➤ That the Ld. CIT(A) never verified the contents of the ground from JAO by invoking his powers as conferred in Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act. And the fact is that JAO aware that Appellant has opted PMGKY-2016 scheme and deposited tax and make FDR. ➤ That the assessee is a 83 year old super senior citizen and not technology savvy, the communication vide portal did not reached her but in fact she participated time to time in physical notices delivered to her during recovery proceedings which were initiated by JAO after Assessment Order passed u/s 144 but before the order of CIT(A). ➤ That the same can be verified from the Letter given to JAO dt 20.02.2020 as well as 25.01.2023 which were before the CIT(A) order dt 31.01.2023. ( attached as Ann 49 to 54) That the CIT(A) Should adjudicate the single self explanatory ground raised before him and pass the order on merits after confirming from JAO that whether the assessee opted for the scheme or not and deposited the tax, by way of speaking order and in accordance with the law Reliance has been placed in the following judgments: • In the case of Marvel Industries Ltd vs DCITreported at [2022] 140 taxmann.com 430 (Mumbai - Trib.) on 19.07.2022 held that: 13 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 \"4. ----In our considered view, irrespective of the non-appearance of theassessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have dealt with the issues so raised by theassessee-appellant on merits and by way of speaking order and in accordance with the law. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication onmerits, in the light of the above observation. As the matter is being remitted to the file of thelearnedCIT(A), we also deem it appropriate to direct the learned CIT(A) to provide the assesse yet another fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Ordered, accordingly. As the matter isbeing remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the grievances of theassessee, on merits, do not call for any adjudication at this stage.\" In the case of Pawan Kumar Singhalvs ACIT reported at [2019] 108 taxmann.com 548 where ITAT Delhi on 12.07.2019 held that: \"8...... it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, heis obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points fordetermination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasonsin support. ..... In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, itwould be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is co- terminus with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. hecan do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to notcomplete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to theassessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution ofthe appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation toSection 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise fromthe impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as isevident from the provisions of the Act. 14 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 In the case of BabubhaiRamanbhai Patel vs DCIT[ I.T.A. No.904/AHD/2023 ]where ITAT Ahmedabad on 15.02.2024 held that: …. 13. In view of the above facts and legal ratio laid by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court and various Tribunals, we are of the considered view that the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) is in contravention of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in summarily dismissing the assessee's appeals for the assessment years under consideration, by passing a non-speaking order, without mentioning the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in his appellate order and without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we are setting aside the cases to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, for both the assessment years, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case on merits.” 6. Learned DR, on the other hand, opposed the submissions. However, he could not controvert the fact that the substantial amount which was deposited has been offered for taxation by the assessee under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The contention of the assessee is that assessee had deposited in her bank account an amount of Rs. 60,38,500/- out of which she had declared a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- out of old savings and Rs. 57,98,500/- offered for tax. It is stated that the due taxes have been paid. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned addition may be deleted and the appeal of the assessee be allowed. 15 ITA no. 1019/Del/2024 7.1. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and material placed before us. The Revenue has not rebutted the contention that out of the amounts deposited in the bank account Rs. 57,98,500/- has been declared under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016. The assessee has also filed supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer ahs not controverted the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, we find merit in the contention that impugned addition deserves to be deleted. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. Grounds are allowed. 8. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 10th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "