Bejavada Subbayamma Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
1. Facts of the case: The assessee was allotted licence for liquor business for the Financial Year 2015-16 after demise of her husband she continued the business with the same license issued to her husband and the Excise Department also permitted to do the same business, therefore they continued to deduct TCS under the PAN of husband of the assessee and also filed the TCS returns in his name only. However, the bank authorities did not allow the assessee to operate the bank account operated by her husband for the liquor business. Thereafter the assessee opened the new account and the sale proceeds were deposited in the account. The assessee filed the return of income on her husband for the A.Y. 2017-18 incorporating the turnover in the said bank account in the returned income. The Assessing Officer issued a letter asking the appellant to submit the details of business and source for the deposits in the format mentioned in the letter. The assessee could not comply with notices sent by the AO. Finally the AO made the addition of the cash deposits as unexplained cash deposits.
2. Before the CIT(A): On appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A), there is a delay of 719 days in filing of appeal. However, the CIT(A) has condoned the delay due to the COVID-19 issues. However, the assessee could not submit any supporting documents or written submission before the CIT(A) for the appeal filed by her. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as there is no response from the assessee.
