9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20-06-2018 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-3, Bangalore with a delay of 24 days. 2. The Appellate Order was served on 25-06-2018 and as per the time limit provided under the Act the Appeal ought to have been filed on or 24-08-2018. In this the Appellant submits that she had Womb related gynecological problem for which she was on medical treatment was advised bed rest for a period of 3 weeks. Therefore the Appellant was unable to file the Appeal within the prescribed time limit. 3. The delay in filing the Appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional, but bonofide health reasons. Thus the Petitioner/Appellant was prevent by sufficient cause in not filing the Appeal within the time limit. 4. In this regard the Appellant begs to place reliance on the decision of the Honourable Jurisdictional High Court order dated 28/10/2011 in the case of ISRO Satellite Centre in ITA No. 532/2008 wherein it was held that in Income Tax matters, delay in filing the Appeal on the part of the Assessee should be condoned irrespective length of delay and the Honourable Jurisdictional ITAT in its order dated 07-08-2015 in ITA No. 1078/Bang/2014 in the case of Glen W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal is admitted for consideration and disposal. ORDER 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee, engaged in saree business, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 21.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 3,12,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the Assessment Year under consideration and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated 26.12.2017, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 15,00,000/-. In coming to this determination of income, the Assessing Officer ('AO') held that the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that she was engaged in retail saree trade and proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 11,87,500/- to the assessee's returned income of Rs. 3,12,500/- on account of cash deposited in the assessee's bank account in ICICI Bank on three dates; i.e., Rs. 3,50,000/- on 17.11.2014; Rs. 2,50,000/- on 16.12.2014 and Rs. 9,00,000/- on 16.30.2015. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 26.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Nos. 2 and 3 raised in this appeal (supra). Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 being not pressed in this appeal are rendered infructuous and are accordingly dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 7.1.1 In support of these grounds (supra), the learned AR of the assessee assails the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,87,500/- u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the AO has not mentioned the provision under which the bank deposits are chargeable to tax and that bank deposits per se do not constitute income u/s 69A of the Act as held by the CIT(A). According to the learned AR, the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had filed her Return of Income for this Assessment Year u/s 44AD of the Act and that the cash deposits represented part of the turnover of the assessee's retail saree business. It was further contended that the assessee has not maintained any regular books of account, since the turnover of the retail saree business was below the prescribed limit as per section 44AD of the Act. 7.1.2 The learned AR submitted that in para 4 of the order of assessment the AO states that a letter dated 30.10.2017 was issued to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Asha Surendra Kumar Vs. ITO in ITA No. 343/Bang/2017 dated 28.04.2017. The learned AR also assails the action of the CIT(A) in holding that the aforesaid cash credits are exigible to tax as undisclosed investment u/s 69A of the Act as they were out of assessee's business turnover. In respect of the CIT(A)'s contention that the cash credits in the Bank are chargeable u/s 69A of the Act, the learned AR pointed out that these cash deposits are not undisclosed investments but out of business turnover and therefore the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not applicable. 7.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue placed reliance on the findings rendered by the authorities below that the assessee had failed to substantiate the said cash deposits amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs. It is submitted that, in the light of the assessee's contentions that the source of cash deposits of Rs. 15 lakhs are explained to be out of business turnover and that the authorities below had brushed aside and ignored the fact that the assessee had cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 29,94,500/- during the year under consideration, this issue be set aside to the fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
