MUTHAIAH CHETTIAR MANIKANDAN,TRICHY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRICHY

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17, dated 12.02.2025.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 34 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee was not aware the order passed by ld.CIT(A), since the notices were sent through email were posted in spam folder. Further, notices were not served physically. Further the order of the ld.CIT(A) was come to the knowledge of the assessee, only after the bank

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual had not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. As per the information that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.14,47,000/- during demonetisation period, the statutory notices were issued to the assessee calling for return of income. However, the assessee did not respond and hence u/s.133(6) of the Act the information were obtained from the bank and found that the assessee had deposited Rs.2,66,000/- cash and Rs.1,70,19,774/- other deposits during the F.Y. 2016-17 in Canara Bank, Trichy branch. Since the assessee failed to file the return of income and participate in assessment proceedings, the assessment was concluded u/s.144 of the Act dated 25.12.2019, by making an addition of Rs.1,72,85,774/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the six notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) from 13.01.2021 to 25.10.2024 as per para 4 of the ld.CIT(A) order. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order dated 28.11.2024 by confirming the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the ld.CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee had failed to take note of hearing notices sent from the office of the ld.CIT(A) as the notices were sent to different email ID. We note that the AO has also passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department along with information obtained from bank u/s.133(6) of the Act and made an addition and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.