AJITHRAJ,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , TIRUVANNAMALAI, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. As per the information available with the department it was noticed that the assessee had made cash deposit to the tune of Rs.61,77,580/- and TCS on purchase of motor vehicle for a consideration of Rs.11,14,340/- and also received amounts from relatives

Before the ld.CIT(A) also, the assessee has neither filed written submissions nor filed any documentary evidence in support of his claim to the notice of hearing issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the ld. Assessing Officer by passing an order dated 03.04.2025. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (A), the assessee has filed appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has not received notices issued by the ld.CIT(A). Hence, the appeal was not prosecuted before the CIT(A) even

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee before the first appellate authority. Since, the assessee has failed to participate both before the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- 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.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of 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 assessment order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

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