JOYMATI GUPTA,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, is arbitrary, erroneous, illegal, and bad in law as well as on facts, and is liable to be quashed.

That the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in confirming the addition of 1,11,89,900/- made under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on ITA No(s). 164/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2015-16 account of alleged unexplained cash deposits, without properly appreciating the facts of the case, evidences on record, and explanations furnished by the appellant.

That the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in considering the same cash deposits more than once and in treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained income, thereby resulting in an excessive and unsustainable addition.

That the learned authorities below erred in law and on facts in treating the entire cash deposits as income chargeable to tax alleged to have escaped assessment, whereas the income, if any, alleged to have escaped assessment was below the threshold prescribed under section 149 of the Act.

That the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 and the consequential assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 are invalid, without juri iction, and barred by limitation, as the mandatory conditions prescribed under the Act, including those under Section 149, have not been complied with.

That the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) grossly erred in passing the impugned order and in rejecting the rectification request in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, without considering the submissions, evidences, and records furnished by the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

That the impugned order deserves to be quashed / set aside and the appellant be granted the relief prayed for.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing."

Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on information that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹1,11,89,900/- in Punjab National Bank during the FY 2014-15 and had not filed any return of income. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022, but the assessee did not file the return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee remained non-responsive to statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and also to a show-cause notice issued u/s 144 of the Act. Since no explanation was furnished regarding the source of the cash deposits, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023, treating the entire cash deposit of ₹1,11,89,900/- as unexplained money and added it to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who observed that the assessee remained non-responsive during the proceedings before the Ld. AO and also failed to offer any explanation against the show-cause notices regarding the cash deposits. Finding no merit to interfere with the assessment order, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the cash deposit of ₹1,11,89,900/- was correctly treated as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. We note that the assessee has challenge the validity of the assessment order as being without juri iction and barred by limitation and the prescribed conditions not being followed, which has not been dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A) in the order which was issued for rectifying the initial erroneous order by him.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Bench was of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not a ITA No(s). 164/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2015-16 speaking order. We note that section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. We find that at both the stages of assessment order before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal, proper representation was not made on behalf of the assessee. We note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. It has also been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act. Therefore, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play that another opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to represent his case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and to be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. Thus, all the grounds of appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

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

CIT-

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

Guard File. //// By order