ARUMUGAM NAVANEETHAN,ARIYALUR vs. ITO, WARD-2,, PERAMBALUR

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the coconut trading business and has filed his return of income on 16.05.2017 for AY 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs.3,69,317/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS for the reason “Large cash deposits in bank account(s)” made by the assessee u/s.143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice 142(1) on 14.10.2019 to furnish the details. In response to the notice, the assessee furnished reply along with the details of bank account statements and other relevant records. On perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was not convinced due to the difference between the credits and turnover admitted by the assessee was treated as suppression sale receipt and making an addition of Rs.11,33,828/- (8% of sale turnover of Rs.1,41,72,860/-) to the returned income and concluded the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), Ranchi on 30.01.2020. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided six opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 6 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. In response to the fourth notice, the assessee submitted reply without complete documentary evidence. Further, the the ld.CIT(A), Ranchi dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to lack of documentary evidence by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 16.02.2025. 6. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not regularly checked the income tax portal and his email due to English illiterate and non-availability of Chartered Accountant during the relevant period and hence he was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not submit the complete documentary evidence before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the first appellant authority completed the appellate proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, 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 information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), Ranchi due to lack of documentary evidence before the first appellate authority.

In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.