Khurshida Vs Ld. Assessing Officer (ITAT Jodhpur)
Summary: The ITAT Jodhpur “SMC” Bench, in ITA No. 858/Jodh/2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20, condoned a 118-day delay in filing the assessee’s first appeal and restored the disputed additions to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessment had been completed ex parte under Sections 147 and 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after the assessee did not file a return, did not respond to the notice under Section 148 or comply with notices under Section 142(1), following information obtained from Bank of Baroda under Section 133(6). The Assessing Officer noticed total bank-account credits of Rs.42,56,974/-, comprising transfer entries of Rs.39,10,761/-, cash deposit of Rs.1,000/-, pension receipts of Rs.2,77,826/- and interest income of Rs.67,387/-, and treated Rs.39,11,761/- as unexplained credits under Section 68 while also assessing the pension and interest receipts, determining total income at Rs.42,16,970/- after allowing standard deduction of Rs.40,000/- against pension income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal as barred by limitation after declining to condone the 118-day delay. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that she was an uneducated widow whose deceased husband, employed with the North Western Railway, had died on 23.05.2018, and that the disputed bank credits primarily represented terminal and death benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund contributions, pension payments, bank interest and insurance claim settlements. The assessee also produced the death certificate, documents relating to terminal benefits and the relevant bank statement with explanatory remarks. The Tribunal found that the delay was reasonably explained and condoned the 118-day delay, setting aside the CIT(A)’s order and allowing Ground No. 3. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the documents concerning the nature and source of the bank credits had not been examined by the authorities below and therefore restored the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to determine separately the nature and taxability of each receipt in accordance with law and not to treat the gross bank credits as unexplained without first considering the documentary explanation and corresponding source relied upon by the assessee, while providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed for statistical purposes; interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C was directed to be recomputed, if applicable, on the basis of the income determined in the fresh assessment, and the penalty proceedings were left to abide by the outcome of the fresh assessment and applicable law. The appeal was ultimately allowed for statistical purposes.
