Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short Ld. CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2010-11, vide order dated 30.12.2023.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 502 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The assessee submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the assessee had undergone medical treatment for his liver for past 7 years and unaware of the notices issued by the lower authorities which have led to ex-parte orders and :-2-: ITA. No:1981/Chny/2025 hence there was a delay in filing the present appeal and prayed that the delay be condoned. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in lorry transportation business and had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.21,67,275/- in his savings bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Namakkal during A.Y.2010-11. had not filed his return of income for the A.Y.2010-11. However, on verification made in AST, it is found that the assessee did not file any return of income for this assessment year. The veracity of the sources through which the said deposits were made could not be verifiable in the absence of any return of income. Having not filed any return of income, but, making deposits of such high magnitude, prima facie, indicates and establish the truth that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts to the department for his assessment. Hence, having perused the information available on record and the facts of the assessee's case forms the reason to believe that the income at least to the extent of Rs.21,67,275/- being unexplained cash deposits made by him, liable to tax, has escaped assessment within the context and purview of section 147 of the IT Act. Therefore, as there is escapement of income, in order to assess the correct and exact income of the assessee, proceedings u/s.147 of the Act was initiated after obtaining proper approval from the Higher Authorities and the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2017. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were sent by the AO. The assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings and hence the AO passed an order U/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28.11.2018 by determining taxable income of Rs.45,75,242/-.
:-3-: ITA. No:1981/Chny/2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC on 31.01.2019.
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided five opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 5 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the assessee’s appeal by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 30.12.2023. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had undergone medical treatment for his liver for past 7 years and had not regularly checked the income tax portal and his email and hence he was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not appear both before the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity before the AO, since the exparte order has been passed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment 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 exparte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee before the first appellate authority. Since, the assessee has failed to participate both before the Assessing Officer and :-4-: ITA. No:1981/Chny/2025 the ld.CIT(A), we levy the cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 23rd October, 2025 at Chennai.