MANICKAM,SALEM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), SALEM

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 10.10.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 171 days in filing the appeal and filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit by assigning detailed reasons for the delay to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 12.07.2017 admitting total income of ₹.12,09,900/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected under CASS for scrutiny. After following due procedures, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 10.12.2019 by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹.30,89,900/- after making addition towards unexplained cash deposit during demonetization period of ₹.18,80,000/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has passed rectification order under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 03.02.2020 by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹.18,83,900/- after making addition towards unexplained cash deposit during demonetization period at ₹.6,74,000/- since the cash deposit with Indian Overseas Bank was wrongly taken as ₹.13,40,000/- instead of ₹.1,34,000/- due to typographical error. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal since the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).

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 ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the detailed facts filed along with grounds of appeal. It was further submission that since the assessee was employed in a remote village, where, there is minimal access to internet connectivity and unable to respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and moreover, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the addition made towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Despite notice of hearing issued, since the assessee could not file any details, the ld. CIT(A) passed the exparte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the details with evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee shall be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, 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 one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as considering the details as may be filed by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th July, 2023 at Chennai.