PANNA LAL MUKHARJEE 1065/1, SHASTRI NAGAR MEDICAL COLLEGE,JABALPUR vs. ITO2(3), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income at Rs.6,21,890/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason that the assessee had deposited substantial cash during the demonetization period as compared to the returned income. The assessee was required by the Assessing Officer to explain cash deposits of Rs.9,90,000/- made on 12.11.2016 during the demonetization. It was the assessee’s response that Rs.4,40,000/- were received after the death of his mother on 13.06.2016 from his mother’s Saving Account and Rs.5,50,000/- were received at the time of marriage of the elder son which was solemnized on 06.12.2015. However, these explanations did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer and he proceeded to make an addition of Rs.10,10,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) and completed the assessment at Rs.13,70,460/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee approached the NFAC, challenging the addition. However, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the NFAC.

Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has passed the order in gross violation of natural justice without considering the application under rule 46A dated 13/08/2022 and evidence submitted with the application. The CIT (A) has not considered the written submission dated 16/08/2022. The order is grossly unjustified should be quashed.

At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative drew our attention to the paper book filed by the assessee and submitted that the assessee had submitted a reply along with relevant documentary evidences for hearing fixed for 26.08.2022 before the NFAC. He drew our attention to the said reply which has been placed in the paper book and submitted that the date fixed for compliance was 26.08.2022, whereas, the NFAC had passed the impugned order on 18.08.2022 itself. It was submitted that, thus, the impugned order has been passed without considering the assessee’s reply which was to be filed by 26.08.2022 and, thus, there was a gross miscarriage of justice in this regard as the assessee had been deprived of the opportunity to explain his case.

Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. supported the order of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. We find that the assessee’s contention that the impugned order has been passed without considering the assessee’s submission dated 26.08.2022 is indeed correct in as much as the impugned order was passed on 18.08.2022 whereas the date fixed for compliance was 26.08.2022. In such a case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves an opportunity to explain his case before the proper forum. Accordingly, we restore the file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh, after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case. 8. In the final result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2023 In accordance with Rule 34(4) of the I.T.A.T. Rules.) Sd/- Sd/- ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 21/07/2023 Aks Copy of the order forwarded to :