RAMASAMY SELVARAJ,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), ERODE

Assessment Years: 2010-11 Ramasamy Selvaraj Income Tax Officer, No.57/65, Karukkakattur, Ward-2(2), P.Olapalayam P.O, Erode. Perundurai, Erode, Tamil Nadu-638 052. [PAN: BUUPS5801E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri N.C.Ravi Krishnan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1071605863(1) dated 27.12.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A)], Addl /JCIT(A)-11, Delhi, for the assessment years 2010-11. 2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. AO has passed an ex-parte order u/s 144. It has been submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has also dismissed its appeal on this short point that the assessee did not responded before the Ld.AO to its statutory notices.

It was argued that no decision on merits has been given. The Ld.Counsel submitted that the entire controversy is regarding cash deposit of an amount of Rs.10,93,500/- in assessee’s bank account and it was treated as unexplained. Request was accordingly made to remand the case to the Ld.AO for readjudication. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR placed upon the order of lower authorities. It has been contended that the assessee is a non-filer and has not responded to the notices u/s 148 as well as 142(1) forcing the Ld.AO to pass an ex-parte order. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before us the assessee submitted that it could not attend before the Ld.AO as the assessee is an agriculturist who stays in a remote village and that he was occupied in some court matters. It was stated that the impugned money actually belonged to the nephew of the assessee, located overseas, who was desirous of purchasing a piece of land. The assessee had withdrawn cash from the nephew’s account. Later as the purchase deal did not materialize, the amount was deposited in the bank account. We have noted that the assessee has not represented its case before the Ld.AO adequately leading to the impugned addition. We have also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has given a very sketchy and cryptic finding before confirming the matter. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given Page - 2 - of 4 another opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the matter stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo by passing a speaking order. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld.AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld.AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences filed through its paper book before us including any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. The said remission is however subject to the assesse paying a cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within one month of the date of the receipt of this order. By the assessee. The assesse will pay this cost and produce the receipt before the AO.