Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi dated 10.01.2023 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19.
The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 80 days in filing the appeal and filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection.
Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of 80 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 30.03.2019 declaring return income of ₹. NIL. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS with the reasons as (i) depreciation claim, (ii) default in TDS & disallowance for such default & (iii) unsecured loans. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 28.09.2019 was issued. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated 05.12.2019, 30.12.2019, 13.02.2020 and 24.07.2020 were issued. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 27.08.2021 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.42,72,574/- after making addition towards unexplained credit of ₹.59,50,000/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer since the assessee could not file any documentary evidence or otherwise for the claim of unsecured loans.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the exparte order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the source of the unsecured loans was duly recorded in the books of accounts and therefore, the provisions of section 69A of the Act cannot be invoked. In support of the assessee’s claim, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed additional evidence in the form of paper book. It was further submission that the assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including the paper book filed. Against the addition of ₹.59,50,000/-, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee could not file any documentary evidence or otherwise for the claim of unsecured loans, the ld. CIT(A) passed the exparte order by upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has fixed the hearing within short notices. Moreover, the assessee has filed additional evidences in support of its claim before the Tribunal. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim. Thus, we set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by considering the details as may be filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) without fail.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th June, 2023 at Chennai.