VELLAMMAL VAIRAMANI,TUTICORIN vs. ITO WARD 2, TUTICORIN, TUTICORIN

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 241 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee is not well-versed in

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of buying and selling of soft drinks and did not file her return of income for AY 2018-19. As per information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made cash deposits and through bearer’s cheques amounting to Rs.1,51,54,630/- and cash withdrawal including through bearer’s cheques amounting to Rs.2,78,416/- into her current account maintained with Central Bank of India. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed her return of income on 30.04.2022 for A.Y 2018-19, declaring total income of Rs.4,76,590/-. Further, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee partially submitted its reply along with supporting documents. Since the assessee failed to furnish the complete evidence to prove the source of cash deposits, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2024 by making an addition of Rs.1,54,33,046/- as unexplained cash deposits and other credits u/s.69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 01.07.2024.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 6 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), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 26.03.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed order by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without participation in the appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer also has passed the assessment order without consideration of the documents filed by the assessee. 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. 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 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 part submission made by the assessee and the information available with the department and

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the 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.