S.VENKATESH PRABHU,TIRUPATTUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, VELLORE

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 612 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in purchase and sale of Tea/Coffee vending machine powder, LIC agent and money lending in the name of M/s. Sri Sathya Traders and has filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 21.07.2017, declaring total income of Rs.9,86,780/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11.12.2017 by making an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as income from other sources and by arriving at a total income of Rs.19,86,780/-.

Subsequently, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Chennai ("Ld. PCIT"), in exercise of powers conferred u/s.263 of the Act, examined the facts/arguments of the ld.AR of the assessee and assessment order and observed that the sources/genuineness of the cash deposit of Rs.2,14,67,200/- in the accounts maintained with ICICI Bank and Rs.2,00,000/- City Union Bank have not been called for and examined. According to the Ld.PCIT, the cash deposit appearing in the bank statement will be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s.69A of the Act. According to the Ld.PCIT, the AO had failed to conduct adequate enquiries on the aforesaid issues while framing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the assessment order was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Consequently, the Ld.PCIT passed an order u/s.263 of the Act dated 12.03.2020 with, inter alia directed to the Assessing Officer that the

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 26.10.2021.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable due to non-attending of the assessee during appellate proceedings. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the NFAC has issued two hearing notices in the month of February 2024 through e-proceedings portal which the assessee could not see and the tax practitioner who was handling the tax matters has not also informed about the same and hence, the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the AO and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the information available with the department and partly reply submitted by the assessee and on appeal the same

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and also obtain the remand report from AO, in case any of the additional evidence provided during the proceedings. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.