SATHYA NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO ,NCW-17(4), CHENNAI

The instant appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], (in brevity “the CIT(A)”) bearing order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1035853103(1), order passed u/s.250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in brevity “the Act”), dated 24.09.2021 for the ::2 :: Assessment Year 2017-2018. The impugned order was generated against the assessment order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward – 17(4), Chennai (in brevity “the AO”) u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2019.

The brief fact of the case is that the Assessee had deposited cash, amounting to Rs.53,64,900/- in his Bank account at City Union Bank & Axis Bank. Accordingly, the Assessee had received some Jewellery loan and top-up loan, total amounting to Rs.8,41,000/-. The said amount was deducted from the deposits and the addition was sustained amounting to Rs.45,23,900/-. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal for further judicious consideration before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel during the hearing first pointed out that, during the appeal proceedings before the learned CIT(A), a notice dated 21.09.2021 was issued with a direction to the Assessee to furnish a written submission within 23.09.2021.

The learned Departmental Representative only relied upon the order of both the Revenue authorities and argued accordingly.

We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on records. The appeal hearing was fixed on 23.09.2021. A notice was issued on 21.09.2021 with a direction to the Assessee to submit a written submission which is quite impossible for the Assessee to submit the same. So the learned Appellate Authority had violated the provisions of giving a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee. Further, though the adjournment petition was submitted, without considering the same, the order was passed and even in the appellate order, the adjournment petition was not considered nor even not rejected by the learned CIT(A). We find no merits in the order of the learned CIT(A) relating to the denial of giving a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to submit the ::4 :: Appellate Authority. Hence, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) for further adjudication on merits. The Assessee should get a reasonable opportunity for defending his matter before the authority.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A No.:383/Chny/2021 is allowed for statistical purposes.