COMMITTEE KHUDDAMIN DARGHJAT HADDE KALAN KHULTABAD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION, WARD-AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Facts in brief are that the assessee is stated to be a Religious Public Charitable body and its income is below the financial deficit and is not chargeable to tax. Based on the information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.15,91,732/- during demonetization period in its bank accounts maintained with Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. Aurangabad followed by validly serving of statutory notices, the assessee was called upon to furnish financial statements, Income and Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet, Bank Account Statement etc. There was no compliance by the assessee to the notices issued u/s.142(1)/133(6) of the Act as well as to the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Authority. Based on the bank account statements provided by the bank, ld. AO found that there are total credit entries of Rs.20,95,879/- and Rs.16,61,042/- in the entire financial year. In the event of failure of the assessee to submit its reply explaining the source and nature of the credits, ld. AO treated the sum of credits aggregating to Rs.37,56,921/- as unexplained money of assessee u/s.69A of the Act.

Dissatisfied assessee preferred appeal before the ld.NFAC who vide impugned order countenanced the action of the AO. 4. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of present hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices were sent on email ids pertaining to the old committee members of the assessee who did not inform the assessee and therefore the assessee was unaware of the proceedings which went against him. Affidavit to this effect has been placed on record. Given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate the alleged cash credits. It is therefore prayed that in the interest of justice the matter may be remitted to the file of Juri ictional Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. A mere perusal of the orders of the lower authorities would reveal that the Assessment Order as well as the First Appellate order were passed exparte owing to non- participation of the assessee. It is the contention of the assessee that hearing notices were sent on the email ids of the old committee members and the assessee was unaware of the 4 Committee Khuddamin Darghjat Hadde Kalan Kultabad proceedings which led to passing of exparte orders. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances prevailing in the instant case, I am of the opinion that assessee deserves one more opportunity to meet the ends of justice. In view thereof, finding of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the issue on merits is being remitted to the file ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication to be carried out after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of January, 2025. - (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “(SMC)” बच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “(SMC)” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,