ITA No.2208/Bang/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Smt. Radha Lakshmi Mannem, failed to file her income tax return within the prescribed time. Her case was selected for scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposited during the demonetization period. Despite several notices, the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO), who then framed the assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding the entire sum deposited as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), claiming her income was below the taxable limit and attempting to explain the source of the cash deposit. However, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte as the assessee did not appear despite multiple notices. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), seeking another opportunity to present her case properly.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A) and the reason for it.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Saifa Molla Vs. ITO, Ward-26(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata 'SMC' Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Smt. Gali Lakshmi Aruna vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Bangalore

  C Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Anupma Bidra vs Income Tax Officer, G Budh Nagar

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Mosarrat Perween vs ITO, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Smt. Shanti Devi vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Ghanshyam Gupta and Anjula Gupta vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13 to 2018-19, 2012-13 to 2017-18Allowed