O R D E R

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated

20.3.2024 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18.

2. At the outset, we note that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 256 days. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that assessee is an individual and was working as nurse in hospital at Tumkuru and got retired in the month of May, 2015 and she was not aware of tax proceedings and her tax consultant was taking care of income tax proceedings. But due to oversight the appeal could not be filed within time before the ITAT.

3. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the assessee has reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time before the ITAT and therefore relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, we condone the delay.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 25.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,85,110. The case was selected for scrutiny on the reason of cash deposits during the demonetisation period and statutory notices issued to the assessee. The assessee is a retired employee from State Govt. and her main source of income is from pension. The assessee submitted copy of return of income, statement of bank account, copy of Form 1 regarding declaration under PMGKY Rules, 2016 and other documents and details as called for in connection with scrutiny proceedings. It was noted that the assessee made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.40,40,000 during the demonetisation period and source of these cash deposits were withdrawal from her bank account out of gratuity and insurance amount and out of salary received from FY 2013-14 to 2015-16. Further the details of cash deposits were also asked with proper notes, evidence, cash deposits and withdrawals made. In response, the assessee filed statement from FY 2013-14 to 7.9.2016, break-up of withdrawal being source of cash deposit. The assessee submitted the whole cash withdrawal from 10.7.2013 till 7.9.2016 as the source of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. On perusal of bank statement it was noticed that assessee has frequently withdrawn money but the reason for withdrawal was not submitted. Further the assessee submitted once a withdrawal is made which remained unutilized, but subsequent withdrawal was not accepted by the AO. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee and assessee submitted further reply. After considering the entire facts of the case, the AO allowed Rs.5 lakhs towards cash deposits under PMGKY scheme and made addition u/s. 69A of Rs.35,40,000 and computed tax u/s.

115BBE of the Act.

5. Aggrieved from the above order the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and filed the details which were filed before the AO. The assessee relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. K. Noorjahan [1999]103 Taxman 382 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that the assessee had no sources and therefore impossible to generate black money.

6. The ld. FAA after relying on judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venkataraman v. CIT, 127 ITR 807 and judgments of the Tribunal in Neeta Breja (ITA No.524/Del/2017) & ACIT v. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) allowed cash deposits in FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 to the extent of Rs.24 lakhs and confirmed Rs.11,40,000. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

7. The ld. DR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that assessee is living alone and there is no other source of income except pension and she got retired from State Govt. department and received retirement benefit. Before the lower authorities the details of break up were submitted out of which the ld. FAA has allowed Rs.24 lakhs withdrawn during the FY 2015-16 & 2016