Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed her appeal. The AO made an addition of Rs. 16,37,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond to notices and substantiate the source of deposits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ 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 31.07.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 05.12.2019.
:- 2 -:
There is a delay of 310 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.
The assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 07.10.2017, admitting total income of Rs.3,49,840/-.
The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.17,81,000/- during demonetization period. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposits as arising out of her money lending business. However, the A.O has accepted cash deposits only to the extent of Rs.1,44,000/- as family savings and made addition of Rs. 16,37,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued and failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposits with supporting documentary evidence.
:- 3 -:
The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed order ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate her case. It was therefore submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee had not responded to the notices issued and had also not explained the nature and source of the cash deposits with supporting evidence. In our considered opinion, sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee before confirming the addition made under section 69A of the Act. However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate her case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in :- 4 -: accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish all relevant details in support of her claim for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 30th day of October, 2025 at Chennai.