9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrary to law. facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The Ld. CIT(A)erred in passing the order without providing a proper opportunity for the appellant to be heard, despite the appellant's request for an adjournment due to the sudden death of the appellant's authorised representative. By denying the appellant the opportunity to present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) needs be quashed. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 10,07,000/- on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period, and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08/11/2016 when the demonetisation of specified banknotes was announced, assessee deposited the entire cash holdings amounting to Rs. 10, 07, 000/-in her bank account. Subsequently she invested the said amount in fixed deposits in her name. 2.2. During the year under consideration assessee received notice under section 142 (1) to file the return of income. The notice was based on the data gathered during the online verification phase under operation clean money, wherein individuals who deposited substantial cash during the demonetisation were targeted. All subsequent notices were sent to the assessee's tax portal and due to her age and lack of technical knowledge, assessee was unaware of proceedings being initiated. It was only after rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the said amount was accumulated by the assessee out of her savings and cannot be doubted. 5.2. The Ld.AR placed reliance on bank statements at page 25-35 of the paper book, wherein the assessee has sufficient cash that was withdrawn from time to time in the part, out of which certain amount was kept in her hands and the balance was deposited back. The Ld.AR submitted that in this manner assessee accumulated Rs. 10,07,000/-the court deposited into her bank account during that the demonetisation period. The Ld.AR prayed that the amount deposited cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69 a of the act. 5.3. On the contrary the Ld.DR submitted that you verification carried out. He submitted that except for furnishing the bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case considering the age of the assessee and the tendency to hold onto the cash at that age cannot be overlooked. Section 69 of the act is applicable to any deposits found in the credit of the assessee for which no explanation was offered by the assessee. In the present facts of the case assessee has filed bank statements that are self-explanatory regarding the withdrawals which was held by the assessee as on the date of demonetisation being declared. 5.4. Hence in my view assessee has duly explain the source of balance 5 Lakh cash deposited into the accounts, and therefore no addition can be made under section 69 of the act, unless there is a cogent evidence to prove that the amount deposited in the bank account was undisclosed income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
