TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in making an addition of Rs. 45,00,000 u/s 69A on the ground that the appellant has not substantiated explanation as to the source of investment which has been erroneously upheld by the learned CIT(A). 3. The lower authorities failed to consider and appreciate that as per the settled legal position even if the explanation is not satisfactory then also the AO is bound to exercise his discretion in a fair manner and so done as explained in the statement of facts under the head "case of the appellant before the honorable ITAT", the lower authorities should not have made the impugned addition having regard to the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.K.Noorjehan. 4. For thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... my knowledge and belief and I believe them to be true and hence I am swearing to the affidavit. Solemnly affirmed on this day 24th November, 2019." Accordingly, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay of 268 days. 3.2 The learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case the assessee herself is an uneducated lady staying in a rural village of Kalaburagi. She was not assisted by legal advisor. She cannot read or write and also cannot sign. This can be seen from the thump impression in the appeal papers. She was also not in a position to get timely legal assistance from a Chartered Accountant or Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f being heard was given by the new AO vide letters dated 16.08.17, 28.08.17 and 30.10.17. Thereafter, a final opportunity was again given on 14.1. 1.17, in response to which the assessee along with her son appeared. In course of hearing it was informed to the assessee to submit* her explanations along with documentary evidences, if any with regard to the above cash deposits of Rs. 45,00,000 on or before 04.12.2017. As there was no response for the above, a final show cause notice dated 08.12.17 was again issued to the assessee duly indicating that in absence of not furnishing any corroborative evidence(s), the assessment would be completed ul s 144 (Best Judgement) of the Act, depending on the facts of the case. In response to this final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent on 22.12.2017 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the total cash deposits of Rs. 45,00,000 deposited in the bank account number 0192000100081262 with Punjab National Bank, Super Market, Gulbarga were treated as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee has filed affidavit of (i) Shri Satish, (ii) Shri Rajesh, and (iii) Shri Ramesh, as under:- Affidavit of Satish Affidavit of Rajesh Affidavit of Ramesh That I am an agriculturist cultivating lands situated at Hagarga Village in Kalaburagi Taluka That I am an agriculturist cultivating lands situated at Hagarga Village in Kalaburagi Taluka. That I am an agriculturist cultivating land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That I am not an income-tax assessee as my total income was below taxable margin in all the years. That I am not an income-tax assessee as my total income was below taxable margin in all the years. That I am not an income-tax assessee as my total income was below taxable margin in all the years. 7. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, by observing as under:- "5.The explanations of the assessee are not accepted for the following reasons:- (1) That all the three sons claimed that they were agriculturists cultivating lands situated at Hagarga Village in Kalaburagi Taluka, but have not specified their extent of land holdings in their names including survey numbers. Even the pass books showing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12.2017 and the remand report was submitted by the AO on 24.10.2018. Hence, there was almost ten months time available to the assessee / AR to substantiate their claims. Other than furnishing Affidavits, the assessee / AR has not produced any corroborative evidences even during the course of remand proceedings with regard to land holdings / survey numbers / details of land sold / agricultural activities carried over the period of years and the income earned therefrom. Hence, it is clear that the assessee has no information available to substantiate her claim. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 45,00,000/- as unexplained income u/ s 69A of the I.T.Act, 1961, is sustained. In view of the above discussion, all t....