SELVARAJU,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TIRUCHENGODE

1. 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 06.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2011-12.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the assessment order passed by the AO are ex parte orders qua assessee. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has noted from the contents of the Form No.35 filed by the assessee that it was not accompanied with the complete set of assessment order and therefore, issued a defect notice on 08.11.2024 and finding no response, has dismissed it. Likewise, we find that the assessment order has been framed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act‘) i.e. best judgment assessment, since the AO noted that the assessee didn’t respond to his notices, and was pleased to make the addition of Rs.34,69,000/- i.e. cash deposited in the assessee’s account. The assessee brought to our notice that four (4)

notices issued by the AO has gone into the ‘SPAM’ account of the e-mail of the assessee. Therefore, assessee was not aware of the notices and therefore, couldn’t reply. Be that as it may, since the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.