ITO Vs Sarika Shankarrao Zilpe (ITAT Nagpur)
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC dated 24.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal arose from an assessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal first condoned a delay of four days in filing the appeal and admitted the matter for hearing.
The Revenue raised several grounds challenging the order of the CIT(A). Its primary grievance was that the CIT(A) entertained an appeal filed by a person who was not registered as a legal heir on the e-filing portal and therefore was allegedly unauthorized. The Revenue also argued that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without complying with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer (AO). It further contended that substantial business transactions and cash deposits continued in the assessee’s name during AY 2018-19, including liquor sales receipts of Rs. 31,33,361 and cash deposits of Rs. 1,39,86,671, indicating that income continued to be earned in the assessee’s name.
The facts of the case showed that the assessee had not filed a return of income for AY 2018-19. Based on information available with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, it was found that substantial cash deposits had been made in the bank account. During proceedings under Section 148A(d), a notice under Section 148 was issued and served upon the assessee, but no return of income was filed. Information received from Yeotmal Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. through Form 61A showed aggregate cash deposits of Rs. 1,39,86,671 in the name of M/s Hotel Kingstar Restaurant. The AO completed the assessment under Sections 147 and 144 by treating the total credits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under Section 69. An additional amount of Rs. 31,33,361 reflected in Form 26AS was also added under Section 69C.
