SUBRAMANIYAM MADHESWARAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 393 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 and did not file his return of income for AY 2013-14. As per the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made Time deposit of Rs.16,25,000/-, TDS return - Payment to Contractor (Section 194C) for Rs.44,36,267/- and cash deposits in Savings Account to the tune of Rs.1,18,63,350/- during the assessment year. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed his return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 29.11.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,80,000/-. Further, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee furnished his reply without supporting documents for consideration. Since the assessee failed to furnish complete documentary evidence to substantiate his claims, the AO completed the assessment by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.1,18,63,650/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and by arriving total income of Rs.1,20,43,350/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 02.05.2022.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided two opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 4.1 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an order dated 29.01.2025 by confirming the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not checked the income tax portal and his email ID during the relevant period and hence the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, he could not submit the written submission and valid evidence before the ld.CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. Further, the ld.AR of the assessee argued that the NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,18,63,350/- being the total cash deposits made in the bank account maintained by the assessee during the assessment year under consideration as unexplained money in terms of Section 69A of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. In view of the above, 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 as the assessment order passed without having the complete details of the source. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the authorities to complete the 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). 8. 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 on appeal the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A),

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.