MOHAMMAD AKBAR SHAIKH MANAN,PARBHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARBHANI

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.1,26,88,120/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”).

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file his return of income for AY 2016-17. As per the information on RMS Module of Insight Portal, it was found that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.1,26,88,120/- into his savings bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. during the Financial Year 2015-16 relevant to the AY 2016-17. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after following the due procedure as mandated in law. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 16.03.2023 and served upon the assessee. However, the assessee did not file his return of income in response to the same. Various notices issued by the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings also remained un-complied with by the assessee. The information sought by the Ld. AO from the concerned Bank

On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC there was non-compliance of notices of hearing and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a coconut water seller. He is not much educated and not conversant with the technicalities of tax laws because of which the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with a delay which was condoned by him, however, the assessee was not provided with the adequate opportunity to make his submissions as the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC issued all the notices within a short span of one month. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and therefore humbly urged that, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent and substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite details/documents.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the Ld. AO.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. AO has completed the assessment exparte qua the assessee due to non-compliance of notices of hearing issued by him resulting into an addition of Rs.1,26,88,120/- u/s 69A of the Act. Since there was non-compliance by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, he dismissed the assessee’s appeal and also endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not a speaking order on merits of the case. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the non-compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not intentional but resulted due to the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The Ld. AR has therefore humbly prayed that as the assessee has a strong case on merits, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent and substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.