MEENA NEUPANE,GURGAON V. ITO,WARD 2(5),GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 6093/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Meena Neupane, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had made an addition of Rs. 24,21,000 to her income for the assessment year 2017-18 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The addition was based on unexplained cash deposits. The First Appellate Authority dismissed her appeal as time-barred, which was contested at the Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural irregularities in the dismissal and accepted the substantive arguments regarding the source of the cash deposits, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112045 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M.R. SAHU; MEENA ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 6093/Del/2024 Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Meena Neupane, vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), C/o CA MR Sahu, Gurgaon House No. 651, 1st floor, Sector-10A, Nr. GD Goenka Public School, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana (PAN: ADIPN2367G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M.R. Sahu, CA & Ms. Meena (Assessee) Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Heard both the parties at length and perused the relevant records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 30.7.2017 and the case of the assessee was selected under CASS. Subsequently, various notices were issued to the assessee followed by various show cause notices but the assessee requiring the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of income and explained the ambiguous cash deposits but the assessee failed to comply with the notices. Hence, the AO completed the assessment and passed order u/s. 144 of the Act on 7.11.2018 by making the addition of Rs. 24,21,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 36,90,410/-. However, in 2 | P a g e appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of time barred. Against the above, assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal for 92 days, without appreciating the fact that at the first part of the appeal order it was accepted that appeal was filed in time whereas the second part of the order the CIT(A)’s opinion was changed, and the appeal was dismissed without issuing show cause notice, thus the principles of natural justice offended and accordingly, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be held as not valid order in the eyes of law. He further submitted that both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the direct evidence including the explanations filed relating to source of cash deposits from past withdrawals from the bank account being deposited during the demonetization period, thus the binding CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2025 was not followed. In support of his contention, he filed a small Paper Book containing pages 1-45 and drew my attention towards page no. 14 of the Paper Book which clearly shows that on 29.12.2026 vide cheque no. 747001 cash paid - self amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- and similarly at page no. 15 of the Paper Book clearly shows that on 08.03.2016 vide cheque no. 760151 cash paid : self amounting to Rs. 9,15,500/- thus cash amounting to Rs. 24,15,500/- was withdrawn by the assessee. He further drew my attention towards at page no. 18 of the Paper Book which shows that on 12.11.2016 the cash amounting to Rs. 24,15,500/- was deposited and on 15.11.2016 Rs. 5500/- was also deposited in the account of assessee, which clearly establish explanations relating to source of cash deposits from past withdrawals from the bank account being deposited during the demonetization period, therefore, he prayed that addition of Rs. 24,21,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act may be deleted in full. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s arguments and Revenue’s 3 | P a g e contention in support of the impugned addition. At the threshold, I note that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 92 days. I find considerable potency in the submission of the Ld. AR for the assessee that the assessment order dated 07.11.2019 was received by the assessee on 17.01.2020 and therefore, the appeal was filed within 30 days before the Ld. CIT(A) on 06.02.2020 vide e-filing Acknowledgement No. 300624940060220, hence, there is no delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After carefully perusing the Paper Book filed by the assessee before us, I find plausible contention of the assessee’s AR, as discussed above, that there is sufficient explanation relating to source of cash deposits from past withdrawals from the bank account being deposited during the demonetization period, therefore, in my considered opinion, the addition of Rs. 24,21,000/- made u/s. 69A of the Act deserve to be deleted. I hold and direct accordingly. 6. The instant assesseee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.04.2025. SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "