Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) identified cash deposits of ₹ 1.28 Crores, issued notices under Sections 148 and 142(1), but received no response, leading to an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, treating the deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to lack of prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's claim of illiteracy and lack of email access, and the ex-parte nature of both the AO and CIT(A) orders, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard and submit necessary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment by the AO and subsequent ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) were justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case, especially considering claims of illiteracy and inability to respond to notices.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 142(1), 144, 69A, 115BBE, 147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE- & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 22.06.2024 pertains to the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 153 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in :-2-: ITA. No: 315/Chny/2025 filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The only effective ground raised by assessee for our consideration is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in concluding the appellate order exparte the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and no return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration. As per AIR information, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposits of ₹. 1,28,15,219/- in different account maintained by him in the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. other than the current account in banks. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file income tax return, for which, there was no response from the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, for which, we find no representation from the assessee before the Assessing Officer, which is reflecting at page 2 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, thereby, completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act in the absence of any response to the notices issued by treating the cash deposits of ₹.1,28,15,219/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution since the assessee could not respond to various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). On :-3-: ITA. No: 315/Chny/2025 being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. AR Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana, Advocate submits that non- response to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. He also submits that the assessee is an illiterate and do not operate e-mail and thereby miserably missed to reply to the notices issued by the Department. He also submits that since the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer passed exparte orders, there was no assistance from the assessee against the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and thus prayed one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue his case before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 5 of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed and thus, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.
Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 147r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well
:-4-: ITA. No: 315/Chny/2025 as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh by affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee after considering the written submissions/documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 17th April, 2025 at Chennai.