289 MARAVANOOR PACCS,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 47 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the office bearers and the employees of the assessee are rural residents who have limited familiarity with the faceless and electronic regime of proceedings

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society and did not file its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20. As per the information available with the department, the AO observed that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,08,66,232/- with The Tiruchirappalli District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. during the assessment year. Hence, the case was re- opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed its return of income on 01.05.2023 for AY 2019-20, declaring total income of Rs.NIL. Further, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. Since, the assessee failed to response to any of the notices, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 23.02.2024 by making an addition of Rs.2,08,66,232/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 01.08.2024.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer based on the submissions made in Form 35, without any participation of the assessee. 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 of the assessee without participation of the assessee in the appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer also has passed the assessment order without any documentary evidence 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 exparte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to the non-participation before the first appellate authority. Since, the assessee has failed to participate before the AO as well as the first appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

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.