RAMA KANDUKURI,ADILABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming an addition of Rs.20.000/-being difference in cash balance, made by the A.O.

6. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.”

3 ITA.No.877/Hyd./2025 to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that after the remand of the matter to the record of the learned CIT(A), only one notice was issued after 02 years and the said notice was sent by the learned CIT(A) to the old email address, whereas the assessee already updated the email address in the ITBA portal on 01.02.2024. He has referred to the print-out taken from the ITBA portal of the Department and submitted that the assessee updated the email address on 01.02.2024 placed at pages 1 and 2 of the paper book. However, the learned CIT(A) has not issued the notice at the updated email ID, but, it was issued on the old email ID given in Form-35 filed at the first round of appeal. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that the assessee could not receive the alleged notice issued by the learned CIT(A) and, therefore, there was no compliance / appearance before the learned CIT(A). He has further contended that the assessee is a old lady of more than 65

4 ITA.No.877/Hyd./2025 years and has taken all the necessary steps to ensure the participation before the learned CIT(A). However, in the absence of communication of the notice, she could not participate in the set-aside proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). Thus, he has submitted that the matter again remanded to the learned CIT(A) for adjudication, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5. On the other hand, learned DR for the Revenue has submitted that once the Tribunal has granted only one opportunity to the assessee to represent the case before the learned CIT(A), then, the non-appearance on the part of the assessee in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT(A) does not give any further right to the assessee to challenge the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). He has relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A).

“6.1.4. In strict compliance with the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant was provided one last opportunity to present her case. A hearing notice dated 14.03.2025 was issued. The notice explicitly stated

“Please treat this as the final opportunity as directed by Hon’ble ITAT vide Order dated 28.04.2023 in 2023.”

6.1.5. However, the appellant has failed to comply with the Hon'ble ITAT directions and has not availed the final opportunity granted. The appellant has neither appeared in person nor through an authorized representative, nor filed any written submissions online on or before the hearing date. This clearly demonstrates continued non-compliance with the directions of the appellate authorities and a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

6.1.6. Since the appellant has failed to avail the final opportunity granted as per the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT, the appeal is decided as under 6.1.7. During the assessment proceedings, appellant did not furnish confirmations in respect of loans taken to the extent of Rs.28.90,000/- from six parties. Further, in respect of one party namely Smt. K. Saroja for a loan given amount of Rs.1,00,000/- AO held that the proof given by the appellant does not establish the creditworthiness of the said party. Accordingly, AO held that Rs.30,90,000/- was to be treated as unexplained cash credit in 6 ITA.No.877/Hyd./2025 the hands of the appellant. AO also noticed that the cash balance shown in Balance sheet was in excess of Rs.20,000/- to that shown in the cash book. Accordingly, Rs.20,000/- was added to the appellants total income.

6.1.8. During the earlier appeal proceedings, several opportunities of hearing were provided to the appellant to substantiated the grounds of appeal raised. In such circumstances, Ld CIT(A) dismissed appeal on account of non- prosecution and also on merits. On appeal, Hon'ble ITAT provided one last opportunity to the appellant to substantiate her case. Accordingly, opportunity was provided to the appellant. Once again, there was no response from the appellant, In order to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans taken to the extent of Rs.30,90,000/-, appellant is required to furnish documents/evidences. Neither before the AO nor during the appellant proceedings, the appellant had furnished details/documents. To take a view contrary to that of the AD, appellant has to provide documentary evidences as mentioned above.

6.1.9. In the grounds of appeal

, the appellant contended that unsecured loans to the extent of Rs.29,90,000/- pertain to period prior to previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. To substantiate this ground, appellant required to furnish details such as the year in which the loan was taken, entry in the books of account for the relevant assessment year, confirmation from the parties etc. No such details were provided by the appellant except for merely stating that the said loans pertain to previous years. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant remains unsubstantiated and baseless. Further, appellant did not furnish any information for consideration in so 7. ITA.No.877/Hyd./2025 far as loan taken from Smt. K. Saroja for Rs.1,00,000/- and for addition of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.

6.1.10. This order is passed in strict adherence to the Hon'ble ITAT's directions and due to the appellant's own failure to comply with the appellate process despite being granted sufficient opportunities, the appeal is adjudicated based on the information available on record.”

8 ITA.No.877/Hyd./2025 CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, however, the opportunity as granted by the Tribunal should have been an effective and meaningful opportunity and not a mere formality in compliance of the order of this Tribunal. The purpose of remanding the matter that the appeal of the assessee ought to have been decided on merits after hearing and considering all the relevant facts and details as well as the supporting evidences. Grant of opportunity is not a mere formality of appearing before the Appellate Authority, but, the purpose of the opportunity of hearing that the assessee is given an opportunity to produce all the relevant details and evidences as well as to explain her case, so that a correct decision is taken based on the relevant facts. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued by the learned CIT(A) on 14.03.2025 without an effective service on the assessee would not be considered as an effective opportunity of hearing given to the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is again remanded to the 9 ITA.No.877/Hyd./2025 record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits, after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to update her email ID in Form-35, so that, any miscommunication is avoided.