SMT VEERALA PADMAJA ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 08/12/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,37,680/-. As the case was selected for scrutiny, statutory notices were issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and in response the AR of assessee submitted the copy of return along with bank statement. The AR of the assessee was asked to furnish sources of cash deposits in bank account. Though, the AO has given number of opportunities to submit the required information, there was no compliance from the assessee. Therefore, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), however, did not appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate her claim. The CIT(A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution applying the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the appellant. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the deposits into the bank account amounting to Rs.31,24,350/- as the income of the appellant. 4) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

In the preliminary ground, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order in breach of principles of natural justice and hence the same may be quashed and set aside.

In the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) decided the matter ex-parte. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits. The learned DR agreed with the aforesaid statement of the learned AR.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that when the AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of cash deposits in the bank, the assessee failed to substantiate the same and accordingly, the AO made the addition of Rs. 31,24,350/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Even before the CIT(A), though the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), but, failed to appear and substantiate her claim. Therefore, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to assessee to substantiate her claim by way of documentary evidence before the revenue authorities. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A) to substantiate her claim without fail. If the assessee is failed to substantiate her claim, the CIT(A) is free to adjudicate the matter based on material on record.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.