9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame is passed ex parte and without discussing the merits of the case. 2. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Act made by AO on account of cash deposited in bank account. The AO is not justified in making impugned addition on account of cash deposited in bank account when the claim of the appellant that the same was deposited out of the cash withdrawn from bank account is not disputed by the AO. 3. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal." 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and did not file its return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of cash deposited by the assessee in her bank account during the demonetization period. In response, the bank vide letter dated 04.09.2019 has clarified that the assessee is having account no.3720682000014252 with the bank and has deposited only Rs. 6,00,000/- during the relevant period. The other reported bank account no.3720682000014250 relates to one Ahire Mhalsa Parshram & not related to the assessee. The bank has also furnished bank account statement of both the reported accounts. Later it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has transferred Rs. 5,00,000/- to Shri Digamber S. Goverdhane on 08.03.2017 and Rs. 1,00,000/- to Shri B.T. Sonawane on 02.07.2018. The assessee was requested to submit the details of these pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.03.2024 and 22.04.2024. Since the assessee remained absent, ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution as well as without discussing the merits of the case. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted before us that the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara is not correct. It was submitted that the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara has not given proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain his case and also pointed out the fact that out of 4 notices, three hearing notices were issued only with in an intervals of 7 days and 5 days, which itself proves the inadequacy of proper opportunity of hearing. On merits it was contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier year by the assessee, therefore, the question of source of cash deposits was clearly explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer doubted the payments made by the assessee to one Shri Digamber S. Goverdhane of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 08.03.2017 and another payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Shri B. T. Sonawane on 02.07.2018. Shri Digamber S. Goverdhane appeared before the Assessing Officer and accepted to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- from the assessee in connection with commission/remuneration for sale of land belonging to father/brother of the assessee. It is not understood by us that the notice was issued on the basis of cash deposited in bank accounts during the demonetization period and when the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
