S.115BBE 60% tax rate applies to S.69A additions from A.Y.2017-18; Division Bench HC preferred over Single Judge; Rs.2.5L cash deposits accepted per CBDT.

आदेश /ORDER 

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 12.11.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 03.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/143(3) of the I.T. Act dt:03.12.2019, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide order passed u/s 250 of the I.T. Act dt:12.11.24, is not in accordance with the facts of the case and the provisions of law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal, ex-parte, without granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice.

3. The disposal of the appeal, ex-Parte, by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the IT Act which obligates the CIT (A) to dispose of the appeal on merits.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.11,00,000/-u/s 69A of the IT Act and which is contrary to the provisions of law.

5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT (A) be set aside in the interest of justice.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for the A.Y.2017- 18 on 29.02.2018 under section 139(4) of the Act, declaring an income of Rs. 3,12,000/- . Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” to verify the “Large value cash deposits during the demonetization period as compared to the returned income”.

3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O vide his notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 15.02.2019 and 09.11.2019, called upon the assessee to furnish a copy of her bank account for the subject year along with the source of the cash deposits made in the same. As the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details, therefore, the A.O held the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.11,00,000/- made in her two bank accounts as having been sourced from her unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and framed the assessment vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 03.12.2019.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned assessment order before the CIT(A) but without success.

5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. I have heard the Ld. Authorised representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions.

7. Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA, Learned Authorised Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of appeal, submitted that the same involves a delay of 161 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld.AR submitted that the same had crept in for the reason that the assessee, during the relevant period, had initially met with an accident and suffered injury of her right ankle and forearm and was advised bed rest for three weeks. The Ld.AR submitted that thereafter the assessee was taken unwell with dengue fever and had remained confined to her house for another two weeks. The Ld.AR submitte