Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a dealer in LPG refills, filed her return of income. Her case was selected for scrutiny, but she failed to respond to notices. The AO made additions for unexplained cash deposits and gross profits. The CIT(A) also confirmed the AO's order ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to present her case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from appearing before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices, and if so, whether a de novo appeal hearing should be granted?
Sections Cited
142(1), 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC)
Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16.08.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Brief facts are as under:
The assessee is an individual, who is a dealer for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. engaged in marketing of LPG refills activity filed her return of income on 07.01.2018 admitting total income of Rs.16,83,690/- for assessment year 2017-18. Subsequently, case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.142(1) has been issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to the notices. Thus, the AO completed the assessment. In fact, AO made an addition of Rs.27,67,500/- on account of cash deposits during demonetization in the assessee bank account treating as unexplained and unaccounted income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further made an addition of Rs.68,28,680/- on account of addition gross profits.
Assessee further challenged the order of assessment u/s 143(3) 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 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 her explanation regarding cash deposits during demonetization and addition on account addition gross profits. The ld.DR stated that the assessee has defaulted 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. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo appeal hearing 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 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.CIT(A), who shall proceed for fresh appeal hearing, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate her case with all evidence and documents regarding cash deposits during demonetization etc. if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appeal proceedings as per law. The ld. AR, who appeared also assured the bench that he will ensure that the assessee will prosecute her case diligently before the ld.CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.