SMT. SANTOSH DEVI,ALWAR V. ITO, WARD-BEHROR, BEHROR

ITA 372/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Santosh Devi, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the AO's assessment for the year 2012-13, which included unexplained cash deposits and estimated household expenses. The ITAT noted procedural lapses in the communication of notices to the assessee, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the actual amount of cash deposited and the source of these deposits, which were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the matter to the AO for a re-assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398445 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

"fvvk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No.372/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Shri Kamlesh Yadav Village: Bhiteda, Tehsil: Behror-301701 cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Behror LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CJDPD 4155 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 02 /06/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 20-03-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.26,40,000/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the 2 ITA NO.372/JPR/2025 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR cash deposit in the bank account as unexplained income of the assessee ignoring that amount of cash deposited in the bank account is only Rs.13,20,000/- and source of cash deposit is out of earlier withdrawals from the bank account and past savings of assessee.. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.1,20,000/- made by the AO by considering the household expenses as unexplained ignoring that she has not incurred any household expenses which is incurred by her husband Shri Kamlesh Yadav. 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 283 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld.AR of the assessee filed an application dated 28-02-2025 for condonation of delay with following submissions. ‘’Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal With reference to above it is to submit that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide order dt. 20.03.202 upheld the order passed by AO assessing the total income at Rs.27,60,000/-. The appeal was to be filed on or before 19.05.2024. However, for the reasons stated hereunder, the appeal could not be filed in time:- 1. I am a housewife. I had filed the return of income for the first time for AY 2016-17. 2. The AO passed the assessment order for AY 2012-13 u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of IT Ac 11.12.2019 at total income of Rs.27,60,000/- by making addition of Rs.1,20,000/account of household expenses and of Rs.26,40,000/- on account of unexplained deposit in the bank account. 3 ITA NO.372/JPR/2025 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR 3. My consultant has filed the appeal before CIT(A) on 07.02.2020. In Form No.35 the e-t address at which notice may be sent is mentioned as [e-mail]. 4. From the income tax portal it is found that Ld. CIT(A), NFAC issued five notices hearing between 08.01.2021 to 02.03.2024 at the e- mail address [e-mail] [e-mail]. These e- mail ids belong to my earlier consultant who did not inform me about these notices. Thus these notices never came to my knowledge. 5. When I received the SMS on my mobile for settlement of case under Direct Tax Vivad Vishwas Act, 2024, 1 met CA Akshay Jain of Alwar on 21.01.2025 and showed him t message. Thereafter he browsed my e-portal when it came to the notice that appellate ord has been passed on 20.03.2024. 6. I am advised by CA Akshay Jain to file the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT with a request condone the delay in filing the appeal and accordingly the appeal is now filed by me. Thus the delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing for imparting substantial justice.’’ To this effect, the assessee filed an affidavit deposing the above facts as to the delay made in filing the appeal 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, however, the court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 4 ITA NO.372/JPR/2025 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench feels that there is merit in the prayer of the assessee and the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. Hence, in this view of the matter, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the assessment order made by the AO. The narration as made in the ld.CIT(A) in his order at para 9 to 11 is reproduced as under:- ‘’DETERMINATION AND DECISION 9. I have carefully perused the assessment order, the brief statement of facts filed and considered the facts of the case. Having so considered, the appeal is adjudicated as under:- 9.1 No specific ground of appeal has been filed by the appellant, the appellant has only stated that Cash deposited is not her taxable income. No specific submissions have been filed by the appellant in this regard. 9.2 As per the assessment order, the appellant had deposited Cash of Rs.26,40,000/- in her bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhiwadi branch. The appellant has failed to establish the source of Cash deposits - both during the assessment and during appellate proceedings. Since no submissions on merits have been filed, the e- filing history of the appellant as available on CPC 2.0 portal has been examined and it is noted that no return has been filed for AY 2012-13 or any of the preceding years. The first ITR has been filed from AY 2016-17 onwards. No details have been filed to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.26,40,000/-To sum up the above, the analysis of the cash deposited added in the appellant's income is as under:- 5 ITA NO.372/JPR/2025 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR 1) The appellant has deposited cash of Rs.26,40,000/- in the bank accounts maintained by the appellant. 2) The appellant is found to be the owner of the money as established by the A.O. through perusal of bank statements. 3) The investment/expenditure of the appellant is not recorded in the books of account as no books of accounts have been maintained at all. 4) The nature and source of the cash deposited found in the bank statement are not identifiable. 5) The appellant has failed to offer any explanation, whatsoever, during assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, therefore, the cash deposit appearing in the bank statement remains unexplained. 9.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was given opportunities to put forth her case, but she did not submit any response despite service of notice(s). Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case, no interference with the assessment order of the AO is called for except that the correct applicable section is 69A and not section 68 in the absence of any evidence of any books of accounts maintained by the appellant. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case. No details, documents or submissions have been provided by the appellant to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The appellate proceedings cannot be allowed to be held hostage by dilatory tactics on the part of the appellant and a complete disdain for statutory notices. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the action of the A.O. In treating the Cash deposit of Rs.26,40,000/-as unexplained Income of the appellant. Accordingly, the same is hereby upheld as unexplained money u/s 69A. Consequently, the only Ground of appeal raised is hereby dismissed. 6 ITA NO.372/JPR/2025 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR 9.5 It is pertinent to note here that the appellant has not challenged the other addition of Rs. 1,20,000 made by the AO on account of estimated unexplained expenditure on household expenses during the year. No mention of this addition is found made anywhere in the Grounds of appeal or even in the statement of facts in the Form 35 filed by the appellant. Hence, no interference is made inrespect of this addition in this appeal. 10. Before parting, it is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] and in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in the assessment order, as mentioned earlier, the additions made by the AO are partly sustained in terms of the observations herein-above. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the orders passed by the lower authorities are ex-parte order and the assessee may be provided one more chance to contest the case before the AO in the interest of equity and justice. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the record, we noted that AO in the ex-parte order has made addition of Rs.26,40,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account maintained with oriental bank of commerce but as per the bank statement 7 ITA NO.372/JPR/2025 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR furnished by the ld. AR of the assessee during the course of hearing is that the total cash deposit in the bank is only Rs.13,20,000/-. Further, the explanation regarding source of such case was not considered and addition has been made twice of the actual cash deposits in the bank account. Besides this, it is noted that the AO made an addition of Rs.1.20 lacs towards house hold expenses on estimation basis for which the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the house hold expenses is incurred by the her husband Shri Kamlesh Yadav and not by the assesee Smt. Santosh Devis. Hence, in view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the matter to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 8 ITA NO.372/JPR/2025 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 02 /06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 02 /06/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Santosh Devi, Behror. 2izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- Behror. 3vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 372/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "