Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed belatedly. The AO made an addition of ₹30,39,982/- based on cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, as the assessee did not file a return of income initially and later responded with an income offering of ₹4,44,710/-. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition without hearing the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee and without issuing notice to the assessee's registered email ID, which violated natural justice. Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld.CIT(A) order passed without hearing the assessee and issuing notice to the correct email ID violates principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250(6), 148, 143(2), 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 26.04.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2012-13.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal has been filed belatedly by ‘75’ days and brought to our notice that the assessee didn’t receive any notices from the Ld.CIT(A) though the Ld.CIT(A) has stated to have issued four (4) notices. According to him, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) without hearing the assessee and that too without going into the merits of grounds of appeal raised before him is in violation of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). Therefore, the Ld.AR prays for one more opportunity be granted to the assessee so that he can file all the details to support the grounds of appeal.
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the AO got information that assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of ₹34,02,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with Pondy State Cooperative Bank and SBI, Puducherry Branch. The AO noted that the assessee didn’t file any return of income (RoI) for AY 2012-13, therefore, he issued notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee on 30.03.2019 and in response, the assessee filed RoI offering an income of ₹4,44,710/-. According to the AO, despite issue of statutory notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act on several occasions, the assessee for reasons best known to him didn’t respond. Therefore, the AO was of the view that he had no other alternative but to complete the assessment u/s.144 of the Act on the basis of records available with him and after going through the bank statement of the assessee, he made an addition of ₹30,39,982/- by order dated 21.11.2019. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued four (4) notices and finding no reply from the assessee has confirmed the action of the AO by observing that assessee didn’t produce any material/document to controvert the finding of the AO.
1. Hence, in absence of any explanation with supporting documents/evidences during the appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. However, we don’t countenance this action of the Ld.CIT(A) since we note that despite assessee having reflected in the Form 35, his e-mail ID: m.k.vasanthi89@gmail.com, the Ld.CIT(A) didn’t issue any notice in the said e-mail ID, which prevented the assessee from knowing about the on-going appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A). Since the assessee was in the dark, it is noted that he couldn’t participate in the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) which led to the passing of the impugned order. Be that as it may, since the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order without hearing the assessee and it is the case of the assessee that there was no notice issued to the e-mail ID of the assessee [despite reflected in the Form 35], therefore, we are of the view that there is violation of natural justice and hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the assessee to file written submissions/relevant documents supporting the grounds of appeal and especially the nature and source of the cash deposits in the two bank accounts of the assessee [₹16,19,000/- in Pondy State Cooperative Bank and ₹11,83,000/- in SBI in Pondicherry] and thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
The Ld.AR has undertaken to appear and file all the relevant documents/written submissions as well as evidences to prove the nature and source of cash deposits before the Ld.CIT(A) and present their case without fail, which we expect the assessee to fulfill.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 22nd day of August, 2025, in Chennai.