DEEPAKKUMAR RADHESHYAM SHRIVASTAV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of Non Filers Monitoring System (NMS) Information / ITS (AIR), observed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.19,91,275/- in his savings bank maintained with State Bank of India. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. However, the notice under section 148 and subsequent notices under section 142(1) were returned unserved. As no return was filed and no compliance was made, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and passed the assessment order dated 22.11.2018, making an addition of Rs.23,11,763/- under the head “unexplained cash credit” under section 68 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish the required details before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) due to the grave negligence and failure on the part of his previous Chartered Accountant. It was contended that the assessee has now engaged a new Chartered Accountant who has compiled all necessary documents and evidences. The Ld. AR also submitted a paper book containing additional evidences (page No. 65 to 107), which includes an affidavit of the assessee explaining the reasons for non-compliance, along with documentary evidence Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– supporting the source of cash deposits. The Ld. AR thus urged that the matter may be remanded to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Ld. DR submitted that although these evidences are being produced for the first time before the Tribunal, the same may be considered subject to verification by the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the addition has been made ex-parte under section 144 of the Act, due to the non-compliance of the assessee at the assessment stage. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee neither filed the return of income nor responded to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee has now furnished additional evidences before the Tribunal for the first time, accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons for earlier non-compliance. In view of the foregoing facts, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. We accordingly set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the additional evidences filed by the assessee and to decide the matter afresh after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2.  थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard file.