IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.16/RJT/2024 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91)/ Assessment Year: (2011-12)

(Hybrid Hearing)

Prabhaben Nandlal Ratpiya, Vs. The ITO, “Pushpak”, Mahendrasinhji Chowk, Ward – 1, Street No.2, Ambawadi, Keshod – Junagadh

362220 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALSPR3548M (Assessee) (Respondent)

Assessee by :Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Respondent by :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04/09/2024-refixed for hearing on 31.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’], dated 21.11.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 10.10.2018.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1.Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in dismissing the ground of appeal related to of assessment in violation of principles of natural justice.

2.Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has misplaced the judicial pronouncements while deciding the issue related to validity of assessment.

3.Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in holding the view that no reasons are assigned for not submitting the evidences before assessing officer.

4.Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in denying the request for admission of new evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962.

5. Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in holding the view that the lapse on part of tax consultant for performance of his duties cannot be a base for relief.

6. Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts in not appreciating merits of explanation for source of cash deposits in joint savings accounts.

3. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press ground Nos. 3 to 6, raised by the her, therefore, we dismiss ground Nos. 3 to 6 raised by the assessee.

4. Now the effective ground of appeals, are ground Nos.1 and 2, in which, the assessee has challenged the validity of re-assessmentproceedings under section 147/148 of the Act.

5. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual. In the assessee`s case, the department came to notice that during the relevant previous year, the assessee has deposited aggregate cash of Rs.27,91,500/- in her saving bank account jointly held with Shri Nandlal Jamnadas Ratapiya, maintained with the Junagadh Commercial Co. Op. Bank Ltd. As the assessee did not file her return of income for the year under consideration, the source of aggregate cash of Rs.27,91,500/- deposited during therelevant previous year in her saving bank account maintained with the Junagadh Commercial Co. Op. Bank Ltd remain unexplained. In view of these facts, the case wasreopened u/s 147 of the I Act after recording the reasons regarding income escaping assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 24.03.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. As per AIR information, during the relevant previous year, the assessee has deposited aggregate cash of Rs.27,91,500/- in her saving bank account No.130018/3106 jointly held with Shri Nandlal Jamnadas Ratapiya, maintained with the Junagadh Commercial Co. Op Bank Ltd., Keshod Branch, Keshod. The assessee was requested to explain the source of