SUDHARANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON-CORP.WARD-2(1), CHENNAI

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 15.12.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income at ₹.6,03,850/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the limited reason of “Large cash deposits in savings bank account(s)” and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued to the assessee on 19.07.2017. Later, relevant details were called for from the assessee vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 21.05.2018. However, the assessee did not furnish any details in response to the above notice. After making efforts, the Assessing Officer got the details of bank accounts maintained by the assessee and on verification of the bank statements, it was found that during the financial year 2015-16, the assessee made cash deposits to the extent of ₹.1,09,16,098/- in Federal Bank and ₹.75,000/- in Vijaya Bank. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish the cash flow statement to explain the source for the cash deposits. Since the assessee has failed to furnish any source/explanation, a show-cause notice was issued on 06.12.2018. After considering the submissions of the assessee and since the assessee has failed to prove the source for the cash deposits, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of ₹.1,09,91,098/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed details on 17.02.2020 comprising of 314 pages filed in the office of CIT(Appeals)-2, Chennai and the ld. CIT(A) has completely ignored and brushed aside when the proceedings were taken up under faceless regime and prayed for suitable directions.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, since the assessee has not submitted sufficient materials to prove her claim of the source for the cash deposits, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of ₹.1,09,91,098/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, despite four opportunities were given, no details were furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. However, by raising a specific ground No. 5 in the grounds of appeal, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee has submitted details on 17.02.2020 comprising of 314 pages in the office of ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Chennai, which were not at all considered during the course of appellate proceedings and the ld.CIT(A) has concluded exparte appellate order is not correct. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication by considering the details furnished by the assessee in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th March, 2023 at Chennai.