SATISH DHONDIRAM MALSHETTE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal and the delay was not intentional and the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and information mentioned in the affidavit, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld. DR. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

The brief facts of the case are that, Assessing Officer(A.O) has received information under RMS that the assessee has made cash deposits in Maharashtra Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd aggregating to Rs. 32,94,000/- in the F.Y 2018-19 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The A.O has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148A(b)of the Act and there was no compliance and the A.O has passed order u/sec148A(d) of the Act and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and there was also no compliance. Further, notice u/ sec u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act and show cause notice was issued to explain the sources of cash deposits and there was no response. Finally, the A.O invoked the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash deposits u/sec 69A of Rs. 32,94,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 32,94,000/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s.147 and u/sec144B of the Income Tax Act dated 03.03.2024. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT (A) has considered grounds of appeal, statement of facts, finding of the A.O and has issued 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 appeal with 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 the assessee has a good case on 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 notices referred at Para5.1 of the order but there was no response. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition u/sec 69A of the Act 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, 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, “SMC” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////