Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for failing to provide explanations and evidence regarding cash deposits. The AO had made a best judgment assessment under Section 144 due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had filed some reply, proper evidence was not submitted. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present their case and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 282, 142(1), 144, 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated, 1/3/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the assessee failed to submit any submission or evidence during the appellate proceedings in support of the grounds. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has also passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereas the assessee filed the reply on 22/11/2019 explaining
Page 2 of 6 the source of deposits in the bank account. The additions made by the Assessing Officer have been confirmed by the learned CIT (A) on the premise that the assessee has failed to produce any explanation or supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT (A) which is contrary to the facts on record. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to produce the relevant details and supporting evidences before the Assessing Officer and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has passed the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account. We note that the assessee has filed the reply to one of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) of the Act and the same is referred in para 8 of the assessment order as under:
Therefore, it is clear that some reply was filed by the assessee explaining the source of deposits in the bank account, though the proper evidence may not have been filed by the assessee. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving the reasons in para 7 & 8 of the impugned order as under:
The learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the premises that the assessee failed to give any explanation about the nature and source of the cash deposits in the bank account before the Assessing Officer and also failed to submit any submission or evidence during the appellate proceedings. The learned CIT (A) has not commented on the reply filed by the assessee while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Hence the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to produce the relevant details and supporting evidences.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.