SULOCHANA PRAVIN SASTE,BHOSARI PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), AKURDI PUNE

The brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer (A.O) has received information on AIMS module / ITD system that the assessee has made cash deposits and term deposits in the bank during the F.Y. 2012-13 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14. The A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and fallowed the due process of law and has issued notice u/sec 148of the Act dated 02.03.2016. Subsequently, notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to explain the sources of cash deposits and time deposits and there was no proper compliance by the assessee. Further the A.O has issued a show cause notice and there was no response. The A.O find that the assessee has not made submissions with supporting sources and evidences on the disputed issue in spite of providing adequate opportunities of hearing and finally the A.O considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and has issued notice u/sec133(6) of the Act on the banks and obtained bank statement and details of time deposits and made addition of (i)unexplained cash deposits of Rs..21,30,000/- (ii) unexplained investments in time deposits of Rs.31,07,000/- and (iii) interest income on term deposits of Rs.4,92,555/- and assessed the total income of Rs.57,29,555/-and passed the order u/sec144 rws147 of the Act dated 14.12.2016. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, finding of the AO and has issued two notice of hearing and since there was no compliance, CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings and the Ld.AR mentioned that non-compliance of notices before the CIT(A) is not a wanton act and filed the affidavit of the assessee explaining the reasonable cause. Further the Ld.AR mentioned that the assessee has a good case of merits and shall substantiate with material evidences and prayed for an opportunity before the Lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of CIT(A).

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismiss the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued two notices referred at Para4.1 of the order but there was no response. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non-appearance/ non-compliance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes

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

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////