SRI. PALANISWAMY GOUNDAR VISHWANATHAN,CHIKAMAGALUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 24.05.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

The grounds raised read as follows:

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Aggrieved by the order of the assessment in making the addition of Rs.21,07,000/- assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits. The reason for the CIT(A) in deciding the case ex-parte was that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) dated 03.03.2021, 07.02.2023, 21.04.2023 and 09.05.2023.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing there in the bank statements, copy of the income tax returns filed for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, copy of the RTC for holding agricultural land, copy of the returns of persons from whom assessee had received money online, chart for deposit and withdrawal made by the assessee, etc. The learned AR submitted that assessee is an aged person and is having agricultural background. It was submitted that assessee was not computer literate and was not aware of the notices sent from the Office of the AO or the CIT(A). Hence, assessee could not take part in the assessment proceedings or in the appellate proceedings. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO since assessment has been completed under section 144 of the Act (though wrongly mentioned under section 143(3) of the Act).

Learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is admitted fact that assessee had disclosed substantial agricultural income in the return filed for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Assessee has also produced RTC which proves that he is holding agricultural lands. It was also noticed that for the relevant Assessment Year, the total cash deposit is Rs.23,93,000/- and cash withdrawal is of Rs.17 lakhs. The AO in the impugned order at pages 2 and 3 had worked out the excess cash deposit of Rs.14 lakhs and added the same under section 69 of the Act. Apart from the excess cash deposit worked out, the AO has also worked out the cash withdrawals on account of online money received by the assessee of Rs.7,07,000/- and also brought the same to tax under section 69 of the Act aggregating to Rs.21,07,000/-.

I strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the Office of the AO and CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that assessee ought to be provided one more opportunity to represent his case. Since assessment has been completed under section 144 of the Act, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the AO. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and furnish necessary documents in support of his case. The assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment. AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.