ARULDOSS JOHNSON SUGIRTHARAJ,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1, , KRISHNAGIRI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
माननीय ी मनु कुमार िग र, ाियक सद! एवं
माननीय ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! के सम(
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.69/Chny/2025
िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18
Aruldoss Johnson Sugirtharaj,
No.6/145, Infant Jesus Nagar,
Elathagiri, Krishnagiri,
Tamil Nadu-635 108. Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1,
Krishnagiri,
[PAN: AIUPJ9275A]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ. की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri C.Karthick, Advocate
01थ. की ओर से /Respondent by :
Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
18.03.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
25.03.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated
14.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Brief facts are as under:
In fact, AO made ex-parte an addition of Rs.19,87,000/- on account of cash deposits during demonetization in the assessee bank account treating as :- 2 -:
unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further made an addition of Rs.11,59,157/- as unaccounted business income.
Assessee further challenged the order of assessment u/s 144 of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who proceeded ex-parte and confirmed the order of the AO on merits.
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has sent the three notices which were not received by the assessee, hence the assessee was prevented from appearance on the purported dates. Therefore, he prayed that the assessee may be provided an adequate and proper representation time to file evidence and documents, if any, to substantiate his explanation regarding cash deposits during demonetization and purported unaccounted business receipts. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices for the reasons stated above. We also note that even before AO the order is ex-parte. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 :- 3 -:
days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld.AO whose shall proceed for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents regarding cash deposits during demonetization and purported unaccounted business receipts, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law. The ld. counsel, who appeared through virtual mode also assured the bench that he will ensure that the assessee will prosecute his case diligently.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th March 2025 at Chennai. (जगदीश)
(JAGADISH)
लेखा सद! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(मनु कुमार िग र)
(MANU KUMAR GIRI)
ाियक सद! / JUDICIAL MEMBER
चेई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :25th March 2025
KB
आदेश क तलप अेषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem.
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF