The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to present her case, restoring the appeal for reconsideration due to procedural irregularities.

ORDER

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 01.01.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2021-22.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 03.03.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.20,430/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that large cash was deposited in bank account and the assessee had also purchased/sold one or more property(ies) during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and furnished reply along with bank statements, details of properties sold and purchased, copies of purchase and sale deeds and details of payments. As per the Bank Account statement, the assessee had made a total cash deposits of Rs.33,00,000/- in her Saving Bank Account No.77370100014039 maintained with Bank of Baroda. Moreover, the assessee had also purchased a residential property for a consideration of Rs.66,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The AO, being convinced with the reply furnished by the assessee with regard to the investment in purchase of residential property for Rs.66,00,000/-, did not draw any adverse inference. However, not being convinced with the reply of the assessee regarding the cash deposits of Rs.33,00,000/-, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,20,430/-.

2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1)of the Act, separately.

3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.

4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred and was not justified in serving notices online and none of the notice was sent physically, accordingly the appellant could not attend to the notices not belonging to the appellant, as such the appellant was denied the opportunity of filing the submissions, thus the appellate order was issued without serving the proper notices to the appellant and the assessing officer grossly erred in applying the provision of sec. 115BB wherein income tax @60% was charged.

2. That the NFAC was not justified and failed in confirming that the appellant received the gift in cash aggregating to Rs.33,00,000/- from her husband which was deposited in the bank account of the appellant despite explaining that the amount was received by the appellant from the sale proceeds of the agricultural land held by her husband and the said amount was treated as income of the appellant.

3. That the NFAC erred and was not justified in confirming that the sources of cash deposit aggregating to Rs.33,00,000/- as unexplained and added to total income of the appellant as unexplained money u/s 69A of 1.T. Act 1961.

4. That the NFAC erred against fact and circumstances of the case in confirming that the assessing officer was not justified in applying the provisions of section u/s 69A of 1.T. Act 1961 and ignoring the fact that the appellant had received cash gift aggregating to Rs.33,00,000/- from her husband.

5. That the AU erred against facts and law in confirming and taxing the additions made of Rs.33,00,000/- as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T.