Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income, and their case was selected for scrutiny due to a large cash deposit. The Assessing Officer issued a notice, but received no reply, and made additions. The CIT(A) sustained the addition for non-prosecution after the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices.
Held
The Tribunal found that ex-parte orders were passed by both lower authorities. The Tribunal held that adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
Key Issues
Whether adequate opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee by the lower authorities? Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification?
Sections Cited
142(1), 143(3), 57, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.196/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 The ACIT, Sayeed Ahmed Nalband, KURNOOL – 518 001. Circle-1, vs. Andhra Pradesh Kurnool. PAN AEFPN2207P Andhra Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA Mohammad Ammar For Revenue : MS. Reema Yadav, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.12.2024, of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 2 ITA.No.196/Hyd./2025 29.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.28,16,850/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under ‘CASS’ on account of large cash deposit to the tune of Rs.6,24,70,420/- in ICICI bank account during the impugned assessment year 2017-2018. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act calling the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposit into the bank account. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,01,10,039/- by making addition of Rs.2,72,93,189/- u/sec.57 of the Act as against the returned income of the assessee at Rs.28,16,850/- vide order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Despite issue of four notices u/sec.250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A) dated 06.11.2024, 14.11.2024, 25.11.2024 and 29.11.2024, the assessee did not file any reply. In absence of any documentary evidences filed by the assessee to substantiate
3 ITA.No.196/Hyd./2025 his case, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
CA Mohammad Ammar, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, adequate opportunity of hearing has not been provided by both the lower authorities to substantiate the case of the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for afresh verification in the interest of justice.
MS. Reema Yadav, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the lower authorities submitted that, it is not a fit case to remit the matter in issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for verification as the assessee did not respond to the notices either before the Assessing Officer or during the course of first appellate proceedings. She submitted that it is the settled position of 4 ITA.No.196/Hyd./2025 law that, appeal does not mean mere filing of appeal, but, effectively pursuing it as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., BN Bhattacharya 118 ITR 461 (SC). She accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) be confirmed.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, it is an admitted fact that, both the lower authorities are passed ex-parte orders. It was the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that adequate opportunity of being heard has not been provided by both the lower authorities and thereby, they have violated the principles of natural justice and made the impugned addition arbitrarily and, therefore, in the interest of justice, requested to remit the matter in issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for verification. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that, providing of one more opportunity to the assessee will meet the ends of justice to substantiate his case. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter in issue
5 ITA.No.196/Hyd./2025 back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh verification by giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.