SH. SURENDER JEET SINGH ,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee however, the assessee has filed a petition stating that he is a Senior citizen of 72 years of age and has since shifted from Jaipur to Nashik and is not in a position to appoint any authorized representative to represent his case before the Tribunal and his written submissions may be considered for adjudicating the matter on merits. Shri Surender Jeet Singh vs. ITO 3. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed with delay of 46 days. The assessee has filed a petition stating the reasons for the cause of delay in filing the appeal hence, considering the same, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

In his written submissions, the assessee has submitted that he was under the bonafide belief that his income was below the taxable limit hence, he did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Further due to shifting of his residence from Jaipur to Nashik, he could not complied with various notices issued by the Assessing Officer however, he had requested for transfer of his file to Nashik which has still not happened. It was further submitted that though the ld. CIT(A) has issued certain notices as stated in the appellate order, given that he has shifted from Jaipur to Nashik, he didn’t receive any such notices. Further, he was not in a position to incur any expenditure and appoint any authorized representative to appear before the ld. CIT(A). At the same time, it was submitted that there was no malafide intention in not attending to the hearings scheduled before the ld CIT(A). It was further submitted that he has submitted written submissions before the ld. CIT(A), sent through post, which have not been considered and the appeal of the assessee has been decided ex-parte by the ld CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits. It was submitted that even the ex-parte order should be passed judiciously considering all the material available on record.

It was further submitted by the assessee that he has sold a truck for Rs. 7,35,000/- out of which he had received an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- on 10.07.2008 and thereafter he had received an amount of Rs. 5,42,315/- (after payoff of his loan amount) on 04.10.2008/- through electronic transfer in his bank account and out of the said funds, he has opened a fixed deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- with Bank of Baroda. It was accordingly submitted that the 2 Shri Surender Jeet Singh vs. ITO source of the fixed deposit is the amount received from sale of his truck. It was further submitted that being a Senior citizen, he was under bonafide impression that that his income was below taxable limit hence, he did not file any return of income. Further, in support of his claim that he has sold the truck and sale consideration has been deposited in his bank account, he has submitted a copy of the sale receipt of the truck, letter of transfer to the Regional Transport Office, Jaipur, Form No. 28, no objection letter and registration certificate in Form no. 23, insurance cover note of the Orient Insurance Company Ltd. and copy of pass book of Bank of Baroda showing receipt of sale proceeds of truck amounting to Rs. 5,42,315/- and subsequent transfer of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards opening the FDR. It was accordingly submitted that source of the fixed deposit is duly explained and the addition made by the Assessing may be deleted.

Per contra, the ld. DR drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that on as many as five occasions, the assessee was provided an opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee has not bothered even to respond to such notices and to appear before the ld. CIT(A). Further, there is nothing on record that written submissions were received by the office of ld CIT(A) and hence, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. It was accordingly submitted that more than adequate opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(A) and no purposes would be served in providing further opportunity to the assessee. On merits, the ld DR submitted that there is no compliance during the course of assessment proceedings and the order has been passed u/s 144 of the Act and similar situation prevailed during the appellate proceedings. Further, the assessee has filed the documents in support of his claim for the first time before the Tribunal and given that these documents were not available before the lower authorities, there is no finding which could have been recorded on verification of such documents and where 3 Shri Surender Jeet Singh vs. ITO the Bench so decide, the matter may be remanded back to carry out the necessary verification. Further, ld DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and pursued the material available on record. We find that the matter has been listed for hearing on couple of occasions by the ld CIT(A) and, thereafter, due to non-attendance by the assessee or his Counsel, the same has been decided ex-parte by the ld CIT(A). The assessee has explained the reasons for non-appearance and therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play and especially where the matter has not been decided on merits, we believe that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to put forth his arguments and contentions. Normally, we would have set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A), however, in the peculiar facts of the present case where the assessee being a senior citizen, who is currently based out of Nashik, his incapacity to appoint any Counsel in Jaipur and given the current situation prevailing in the Country due to Covid Pandemic, its unlikely that he will be able to attend to the proceedings before the lower authorities in the near future, we decide to examine the matter on merits based on his written submissions and taking into account the contentions advanced by the ld DR and other material on record.

The limited issue under consideration relates to source of fixed deposit placed by the assessee with the Bank of Baroda and whether the assessee has provided reasonable explanation explaining the source of such deposits or not. On perusal of the statement of assessee’s bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda, we find that a fixed deposit has been placed on 4.10.2008 for Rs 4,00,000/- (and not Rs 442,993/-as stated in the assessment order) and prior to that, on the same date, there is credit of Rs 542,315/-. The assessee explained that Rs 542,315/- is received out of the 4 Shri Surender Jeet Singh vs. ITO sale proceeds of the Truck which was sold by him during the year and the source of such fixed deposit is therefore amount received by him towards sale proceeds of the Truck. The assessee has submitted the registration certificate of the Truck in his name, the transfer agreement with the buyer and other filings with the Transport authority for obtaining NOC, etc. We therefore find that the assessee has reasonably explained the source of funds of fixed deposit which was opened on the same date as the date of credit of part of the sale proceeds of the Truck and the said deposit doesn’t remain unexplained and cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. The addition of Rs 4,00,000/- (wrongly stated as Rs 4,42,993/- in the assessment order) is hereby directed to be deleted. The remaining addition made by the Assessing officer is on account of interest of Rs 25,747/- in respect of which there is no dispute raised by the assessee and thus, no interference is called for in the findings of the Assessing officer in this regard.