MANISH KUMAR,SIWAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.01.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in a business of Customer Service Point (CSP) of SBI Maharajganj Branch and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. An information was received by the Assessing Officer indicating a potential tax liability during the year. He also noticed that a sum of Rs.1,96,17,279/- was received as commission income during the assessment year. The Assessing Officer thereafter reopened the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee failed to response to the notice. Subsequently, the Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manish Kumar Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act requesting the assessee to submit explanations regarding the transaction made during the year. Despite issuance of multiple notices, the assessee did not able to respond properly. The Assessing Officer thereafter treated Rs.1,96,17,279/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. Despite serving repeated notices by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not able to appear on different occasions which led to the ld. CIT(A) to pass an ex parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred the appeal before this Tribunal raising multiple ground. However, the primary contention of the assessee is that both the orders of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer are ex parte orders and the non- compliance of the assessee was due to a belief that the income of the assessee was below the taxable income, hence no return was filed. The ld. AR further stated that the failure to respond notice was due to circumstances beyond his control which was neither intentional nor deliberate. The ld. AR also stated that the assessee has sufficient documents such as bank statement and other relevant documents to substantiate the claim of cash deposits and withdrawals. The ld. AR, therefore, prayed before us that another opportunity may be given to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to furnish relevant documents to substantiate his claim before the authorities below.

On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed and stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter which was clearly reflected from the orders of the authorities below.

In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.