SHRI KUSUMAKAR ACHYUT SHEKATKAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. I.TO, WARD-2, PUNE, PUNE

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.17,60,29,399/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and was a non-filer for the impugned assessment year. Information was obtained from the insight portal that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,44,65,600/- and also derived income from salary of Rs.31,013/-. In view of the above information, since income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act along with order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued and served on the assessee.

During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of such cash deposits. From the details of the bank statement furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that there are huge credit transactions in the account of the assessee maintained with Dena Bank in the name of Magnum Distributors. In absence of any proper explanation, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.17,60,29,399/- u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 being the total credit in the bank account which includes cash deposit of Rs.1,44,65,600/-.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that only three opportunities were granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and in all three occasions the assessee had sought adjournemnts. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC), the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP) and various other decisions. He submitted that he has not decided the appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Referring to the order of Assessing Officer he submitted that the assessee has not filed the requisite details before the Assessing Officer. Further, before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC also the assessee was seeking adjournments without filing any submission. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was fully justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to frequent adjournments sought by the assessee (three adjournments), the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (supra) and various other decisions dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

We find the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which read as under: “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”

However, a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that he has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution but has not decided the appeal as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the appeal on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.