ABDULRAHIM SATHIK JOHN,SALEM vs. ADIT,NFAC, DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order
passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide appeal No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 / 1046323494(1) dated 15.10.2022.
The assessment was completed by the ADIT., NFAC., Delhi,
for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order
dated 15.09.2021.
The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against
order of the CIT(A) confirming action of the Assessing Officer in
2 ITA No. 79/Chny/2023
making assessment of cash deposit of Rs.40,66,800/- in his
savings bank account.
We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts
& circumstances of the case. At the outset, learned counsel for
the assessee submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer
is ex-parte, and even the order of the CIT(A) is for non-
prosecution of appeal and there is no finding recorded except
the following:-
“There is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of the AO. In view of the fact that there is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of the AO, grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.”
When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the
assessee that despite many notices, the assessee has not
represented before the CIT(A), what is alternative with the
CIT(A), he could not explain. We noticed that the Assessing
Officer has provided five opportunities, but the assessee has
not complied with. Even, the CIT(A) has issued various notices
and allowed reasonable opportunity to the assessee, but the
3 ITA No. 79/Chny/2023
assessee failed to avail the same. When this was pointed out to
the learned counsel for the assessee, he only pleaded mercy
and stated that substantial justice should be done.
The Ld.Sr. DR on this, opposed for setting aside of
impugned order, but could not argue that the CIT(A) has
passed order on merits.
After going through facts in its entirety, we noticed that
the CIT(A) has passed order for non-prosecution, which is not
the position in law. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of
the Assessing Officer, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid
by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services
Authority at Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The assessee will
file all the details before the Assessing Officer at the first
instance and he will represent as and when called for
assessment by the Assessing Officer . In term of above, we set
aside order and remit the issues back to the file of the
Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh, in accordance
with law.
4 ITA No. 79/Chny/2023
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes on the above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th March, 2023
Sd/- Sd/- ( जी. मंजुनाथ ) ( महावीर �संह ) ( G.Manjunatha ) ( Mahavir Singh ) लेखा सद%य / Accountant Member उपा�य�/ Vice-President चे(नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Date: 30.03.2023 DS आदेश क� ��त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आयु.त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु.त/CIT 5. ,वभागीय ��त�न2ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.
