NALLAPPA GOWNDER PERIANAN,THENI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, THENI, THENI

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 18.11.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order passed without hearing the assessee and also pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has simply gone by the version of the AO who has also passed the assessment order without considering the relevant material placed before him. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, it can be seen that the Ld.CIT(A)’s order is bad in law for gross violation of natural justice and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity to be granted to the assessee for proving the nature and source of cash deposits of Rs.18 lakhs on 22.02.2018. According to the assessee, even though, the assessee wanted to submit evidences regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits, it couldn’t do so, because, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order. Therefore, he prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee’s case for AY 2018-19 was re- opened since the AO got the information that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.18 lakhs on 22.02.2018 in his Axis bank account, which amount was transferred on the same day to Mr.G. Baskaran, Proprietor, M/s.Boss Enterprises. In order to examine the nature and source of cash deposits of Rs.18 lakhs in his bank account, the AO re-opened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on 31.03.2022. According to the AO, the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of cash deposits and hence, he added the entire cash deposits of Rs.18 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has noted that even though he issued three (3) notices on 13.09.2024, 26.09.2024 & 17.10.2024, the assessee didn’t bother to appear/respond to it. Therefore, he passed the impugned order in November, 2024. According to the assessee, the purported notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) had never come to his notice, because, it was revealed later that the same (notices) were dropped in the SPAM account and not in the Inbox of the assessee. Therefore, according to the assessee, he can’t be held responsible for not responding to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A). Be that as it may, since impugned order has been passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without hearing the assessee, there is violation of natural justice. Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee.