CHINNNAPAIYAN NAGARAJAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2., NAMAKKAL

Chinnapaiyan Nagarajan, Income Tax Officer, No.3/135, Nadu Thottam, Vs. Ward-2, Vallipuram Post, Namakkal. Namakkal Taluka, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637003. [PAN: AJWPN2903Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate(Erode) Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Eswaran, JCIT सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025 : 05.02.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044180368(1) dated 27.07.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2011-12. Page - 1 - of 5 Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 27.07.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 793 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is required to travel extensively overseas in persuit of his living and that his pressing schedules caused the impugned delay which was neither willful nor wanton. An affidavit to this effect has been filed which is on records . The assesee submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities 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 Rs.14,86,500/- on account of cash deposits in assessee’s bank account made by the Ld.AO. 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 accordingly pleaded that in the interest Page - 2 - of 5 of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for re adjudication. The Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities. It was however contended that in the event, the case is to be remitted back, cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the previous time of the statutory authorities. 4.0 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 filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition. The Ld. AO had noted that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 14,86,500/- in Karur Vyas Bank during FY-2010-11 and had not filed his return of income. Consequently initiating proceedings u/s 148 the Ld.AO concluded his assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 making the impugned addition after recording assessee’s repeated failures to respond to his notices. 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 prosecution by the assessee. 4.1 We have thus noted that inadequate submission of details and evidences, before the lower authorities qua sources of cash deposits in assessee’s bank account in Karur Vyas Bank during FY-2010-1, which lies at the core of the controversy. We are therefore of the view that ends of Page - 3 - of 5 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 viewed. We however find force in the argument of the Ld. DR that assessee’s repeated non-compliance has indeed caused loss of precious time of the statutory authorities. Consequently, the decision to remit the matter to the Ld. AO is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes.