GOVINDARAJAN SUNDARESWARAN,THIRUVAUR CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, THIRUVARUR CHENNAI

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) passing ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice and also for simpliciter non-prosecution. For this assessee has raised following two grounds:- 2. The NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice should be reckoned as nullity in law.

The NFAC failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act was not followed in passing the impugned order and hence ought to have appreciated that ex-parte order under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

3. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I noticed that the CIT(A) has allowed three opportunities to assessee to file the details and evidences and his submissions. But also noted that the CIT(A) simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in para 5.4 & 5.5 reads as under:- 5.4 In view of the above, it is clear that the Appellant is not aggrieved with the assessment order impugned herein and is not interested in prosecuting the same. Accordingly, the additions/disallowances as challenged in the Grounds of Appeal and in the Appeal Memo are hereby confirmed.

From the above, it is clear that the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained because there is no discussion on merits of the issue. The issue in this appeal is as regards to cash deposits made during demonetization period of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) amounting to Rs.10,15,000/-. At this point, the ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and the recently filed details in his paper book, 1) Income tax return filed for AY 2017-18 along with computation of total income and 2) Details of jewel loan obtained and discharged by the appellant. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has not at all considered the explanation of the assessee and there is difference in the explanation considered by the AO and details filed by him. He drew my attention to the following reply filed by assessee:- “The said transaction of cash deposit had been actually repayment of loan obtained from Sri Lakshmi Narayanan Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, No.1484, Vijayapuram, Thiruvarur. I had obtained a two Jewel loan amount totaling of Rs.10,00,000/- on 30.09.2016 for Rs.4,70,000/- and Rs.5,30,000/- evidence for which is enclosed. The loan had been discharged on 11.11.2016. I had obtained the loan pledging my wife’s jewels to provide loans to my friends and relations for celebration of Diwali. I realized such loans and repaid the same on 11.11.2016 as the interest paid to bank and interest realized from my friends were equal amounts the same had not reflected in the return of income filed by me on 28.03.2018 for the AY-2017-18.”

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2023 at Chennai.