JAYARAMAN SUDHA,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO,WARD-2, KUMBAKONAM

This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of order

of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide appeal No.

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 / 1046958867(1) dated 04.11.2022. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-

2, Kumbakonam for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act”) vide order

dated 28.12.2019. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee

stated that assessment is ex-parte in regard to addition of cash deposits, being unexplained cash deposits u/s.69 of the Act amounting to Rs.12,63,040/- and as regards to another

2 addition made by the Assessing Officer of entire cash credits

and estimating the same at 8% gross profit on the cash credit

of Rs.87,32,343/- i.e. (Rs.99,95,383 – Rs.12,63,040). The learned counsel for the assessee stated that even the order of the Assessing Officer is ex-parte. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through relevant ex-parte part of assessment order para 7, one which reads as under:-

“7.1 A pre-assessment notice with the above particulars issued to assessee on 14.12.2019 and requested to file her objection, if any, on the above proposal aong with supporting details/and the reply to be furnished this office on or before 19.12.2019. The assessee did not file any objection within the stipulated time. Hence, the assessment is completed u/s.144 r.w.s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

Further, the learned counsel took us through ex-parte order of the CIT(A), particularly, para 4.3, which reads as under:- “ 4.3 Therefore, in view of the above discussed facts, it is clear that the case of the appellant has been fixed for various dates but no reply has been given by the appellant and the appellant is a habitual non-compliant without any concern/ respect for the law of the land. Even the assessment was completed under Section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-compliance. Therefore, it is presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thus, the action of the AO is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.”

The learned counsel for the assessee stated reasons that the assessee being business correspondent of Central Bank of 3 India serving as rural mobile commerce service corporate

business correspondent performing activity of financial inclusion

activity under branchless banking scheme for Central Bank of India and also catering needs of old age pensioners in rural

areas, hence, she could not reply to notices issued by the CIT(A) on four occasions. The relevant dates mentioned by the CIT(A) in his order reads as under:-

Hearing Notice Remarks i) Notice dated 15.01.2021 No compliance ii) Notice dated 04.08.2022 No compliance iii) Notice dated 28.09.2022 No compliance iv) A final opportunity of being heard No compliance through notice dated 11.10.2022 fixed for 21.10.2022

to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the assessee can

explain cash deposits as well as credits. The learned counsel

explained before us that these cash deposits and credits are arising out of assessee’s nature of business as the assessee

deposited cash in the OD accounted operated by her as being

business correspondent of Central Bank of India serving as rural mobile commerce service corporate business

correspondent performing activity of financial inclusion activity

4 under branchless banking scheme for Central Bank of India for Maraiyur village, Nagapattinam, catering needs of old age

pensioners in said rural area. The transaction done through

bio-metric HHD machine, which are not cash transactions were reported as cash deposited in the bank statement furnished by the bank and this has resulted in mis-information, as if the assessee has made cash deposits. Therefore, the learned

counsel stated that the alleged transactions are not cash

transactions, but are transactions of OAP pensions distributed

through HHD machines.

DR could not controvert that it may be true that explanation

submitted by the assessee now before us is correct.

one more opportunity to the assessee, I set aside orders of the CIT(A) and that of the Assessing Officer and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh

adjudication. Needless to say the assessee will co-operate with 5 the Department and will appear before the Assessing Officer

as and when called for. Hence, orders of the lower authorities

are set aside and matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th February, 2023 (महावीर "संह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा"य"/ Vice-President

चे$नई/Chennai, %दनांक/Dated 27.02.2023 DS

आदेश क" ""त)ल*प अ+े*षत/Copy to: