MANOHAR KHATWANI,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /CIT(A) and passed the order u/sec144 and Sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in passing the order under U/s 250 of Income Tax Act 1961 and same is bad in law and null and void.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 and the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 43,96,530/- in the bank accounts in F.Y.2016-17 and the return of income was not filed and there is no compliance to notice issued U/sec142(1) of the Act and sources for the cash deposits in the bank accounts remains un explained. Hence the AO has invoked the provisions of Sec. 144 of the Act and made best judgment assessment considering the material available on record and find that the assessee has deposited cash deposits of Rs. 21,67,000/- in Bank of Maharashtra and Rs. 22,29,530/- In Union Bank of India both aggregating to Rs. 43,96,530/-. Since there are no explanations were filed in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Finally the AO made addition U/sec69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.43,96,530/- and passed the order u/s 144 of the Act dated 25.09.2019.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no appearance/submissions in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing on various dates referred at Page 4 Para 4 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions of the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh subject to the payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the Income Tax Department within two months from the date of receipt of the order by the assesse. Further the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.