NALLUSAMY PONNUSAMY,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1., NAMAKKAL

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.33,68,965/- in his saving bank account maintained with M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. Namakkal., but has not filed return of income for the relevant A.Y. The AO therefore reopened assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However, the assessee neither filled return of income in response to notice are complied with notices issued during assessment proceeding. The A.O therefore passed ex-parte order taking entire cash deposits made into his bank account of Rs.33,68,965/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has issued notices from 20.07.2018 to 23.10.2019, but there was no compliances to the notices and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the Assessing Officer’s order without considering the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, since the case was no prosecuted before the Assessing Officer and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) without any discussion.

Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the impugned order.

We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the lower authorities below. It is noted that the AO and that of the ld.CIT(A) have passed the orders without giving opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we remit back the appeal to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. We direct the assessee to appear before the AO and at liberty to submit the relevant details before the AO for adjudication of the case.