SURENDRA HASTIMAL BEDSA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC, MUMBAI

The appellant, Shri Surendra Hastimal Bedsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] on the grounds inter alia that:

Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : assessee is an individual tax payer having income from house property. During the year under assessment assessee claimed income from house property to the tune of Rs.5,05,814/- with total taxable income at Rs.3,79,940/-. From the information available at AIMS assessee had deposited a cash of Rs.6,77,000/- in his bank account maintained with Dena Bank, Parel and Rs.5,87,500/- in the Bank of Maharashtra during demonetization. Assessing Officer (AO) got copies of the bank statement from the concerned bank. The AO keeping in view the taxable income of the assessee in the earlier years treated an amount of Rs.12,64,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) and thereby framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act.

Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has upheld the addition made by the AO by dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.

We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.

Bare perusal of the assessment order and impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that both AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) have decided this case at the back of the assessee. The AO mentioned in para 2 of the order that numerous notices were served upon the assessee but he has not put an appearance. Ld. CIT(A) also mentioned in para 5.1 of the impugned order that 5 notices were sent to the assessee but none appeared on behalf of him nor filed any written submissions.

On the other hand, assessee stated that no notice has ever been received by him from AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). Even the assessment order and the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) show that the figure of deposit mentioned in the return of income and body of order are also not matching.

It is the case of the assessee that the entire cash deposits by him in his bank account was out of his savings and he was never called upon to explain the same. Though AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) have categorically mentioned that numerous notices were sent to the assessee but he has not appeared, however, at the same time Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 has merely shown to have issued the notice and in the remarks column of table in para 5.1 it is mentioned that “on given date neither any compliance received nor any adjournment letter was filed”, which does not mean that notice was served.

All these aforesaid facts go to prove that the assessee has not been provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. So to decide the issue at hand once for all and to stop the multiplicity of proceedings the appeal is required to be remitted back to the AO to decide afresh. Consequently, appeal is remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.