M SATHASIVAM,TIRUPATTUR vs. ITO WARD 2, VELLORE

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 438 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 lack of awareness regarding the relevant taxation matters and was not notified of the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was a central government employee. As per the information of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- or more by the assessee into his savings bank account for which the assessee has not filed the return of income, the AO had reopened the case u/s.147 of the Act and issued notices u/s.148 of the Act on 26.03.2019 to the assessee. Further, the AO also issued various notices to the assessee to appear and furnish the details of cash deposit. However, the assessee failed to respond to all the notices and also did not file the return of income also. Since the assessee failed to participate in assessment proceedings, the assessment was concluded u/s.144 of the Act dated 28.12.2019, by adding an amount of cash deposit of Rs.17,62,290/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in SB account.

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 three notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) from 06.01.2022 to 25.09.2023. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order dated 20.10.2023 by confirming the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has failed to take note of hearing notices sent through e-mail, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings as well as assessment

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 three 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). We note that the AO has also passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department along with few information and documents submitted by the assessee 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. Since the assessee has failed to participate both before the AO as well as the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) 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. 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 reasonable

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