RAMANBHAI HARMANBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, ANAND

1.

The appellant submits that at the time of assessment & appellate proceedings, he could not place submissions, explanation & justification and both the orders have been passed ex-parte. Having gone through the fact, no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the matter is set aside to the assessing officer for fresh assessment, in the interest of natural justice to the appellant. The appellant shall make due compliance with the notices issued by the authorities.

The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2012- 13 on 21-11-2013 declaring total income at Rs. nil showing agricultural income of Rs. 1,80,800/-. On the basis of information, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee deposited cash in the Central Bank of India amounting to Rs. 12,05,000/- on various dates during assessment year 2012-13. After recording reasons by reopening the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29-03-2019. Despite giving statutory notices, the assessee did not respond hence the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 12,05,000/- as undisclosed/unexplained cash deposits in bank account.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 68 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit along with condonation of delay whereby it is stated that the assessee frequently visits United Kingdom and during the relevant time was not in India. The reasons appears to be genuine, therefore, the delay is condoned.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order as well as due to the frequent visit of the assessee outside India, the assessee could not follow up the matter and gave the details to the Assessing Officer as well, therefore, the ld. A.R. requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte order due to non-appearance of the assessee and non-filing of details before both the authorities. The assessee in condonation of delay explained that due to frequent visit outside India, he could not co-ordinate with the tax professional and due to the genuine reason was not able to submit the details within time. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. has filed the details which require verification. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues after verifying all the evidences filed before the Tribunal. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.