STEPHEN MARY MADONA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

Stephen Mary Madona, Income Tax Officer, No.322/1 Annai MMD Blue Chip, Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), Sales Corp, Arcot Road, Chennai Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. [PAN: BKEPM5748Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri.D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 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 / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1066526239(1) dated 09.07.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 09.07.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities being the Ld.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte orders in case of the assessee. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of on account of cash deposits in the bank during the demonetization period. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued all the hearing notices in a span of just one month before concluding non-compliance at the end of the assessee. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication. The Ld. Counsel assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices. The Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities. It was however simultaneously pleaded that costs be imposed upon the appellant for wasting the time of the Bench. 3.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order, he had given opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition. We have however noted that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought Page - 2 - of 4 on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee. 3.1 We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of deposits in assessee’s bank account lies at the core of the controversy. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The assessing officer is the primary authority under the income tax act to be examine facts of a case in the light of available evidences before determining correct taxable income of a tax payer. We therefore set aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and we direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely Page - 3 - of 4 viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th , April-2025 at Chennai.