Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13. The AO reopened the assessment based on information of cash deposits of Rs.22,73,500/- and made an addition of Rs.27,73,500/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-compliance with notices.
Held
The Tribunal found that the orders were passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee. While noting the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted one more opportunity for denovo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied sufficient opportunity to present their case, and if a denovo assessment should be granted in the interest of natural justice despite the assessee's negligence.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 24.12.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 19.12.2019.
:- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The A.O on the basis of information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.22,73,500/- into his bank account maintained with Axis Bank, reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, made addition u/s. 69A of the Act of Rs.27,73,500/- as the assessee had failed to explain the cash deposits. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued.
The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) contended that the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case. It was therefore submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present her case before the A.O.
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
:- 3 -:
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the A.O and Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued and failed to furnish requisite details. It is also noted that the assessee has been negligent in pursuing the matter both before the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A). However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This shall, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O. The assessee is also directed to comply with all the notices issued by the A.O and furnish all relevant details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
:- 4 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.