SUBRAMANIAN RAMANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN ,PUDUKKOTTAI vs ITO , WARD 1 , PUDUKKOTTAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B/SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23-05-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 31-12-2019. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 96 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee wherein it has been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor wanton. It has also been ITA No.864/Chny/2022 - 2 - submitted that the assessee being a senior citizen was residing in a remote undeveloped area where there was no access to internet facility to respond to e-proceedings. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, considering the above stated facts, I hold that delay deserve to be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.22.33 Lacs in certain bank accounts during demonetization period. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to prove the source of the same. After considering assessee’s submissions, Ld. AO alleged that the books of accounts were manipulated and the same were not reliable. Finally, rejecting the books of account, the assessment was framed on best judgment basis u/s 144 and total income was determined at Rs.26.18 Lacs after adding cash deposited by the assessee in Specified Bank Notes (SBN). Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, it failed to make any submissions during appellate proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities as enumerated in para 5.1 of the impugned order. In the result, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities.

I find that the assessee has remained negligent to make any representation before Ld. CIT(A). However, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, I deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable - 3 - opportunity of hearing. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its claim.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th February, 2023.

SUBRAMANIAN RAMANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN ,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO , WARD 1 , PUDUKKOTTAI