Loading judgment…
Facts
For AY 2019-20, the assessee did not file an ITR despite notices under Section 148. The AO made an addition of Rs.1.17 Crore for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A and other TDS additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as non-est and ex-parte, leading to this second appeal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and first appeal orders were ex-parte as the assessee was not in India and his consultant failed to respond to notices. Recognizing the assessee's genuine difficulty, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification of evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing based on natural justice.
Key Issues
The key issue was the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) and the validity of additions made by the AO, including unexplained cash deposits, when the assessee claimed absence from India and lacked opportunity to present his case.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 139, 133(6), 69A, 115BBE, 194A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 11.09.2024, passed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. First Ground of Appeal The ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal as non-est without adjudication on merits.
2. Second Ground of Appeal The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in assessing the status of the appellant as Resident India.
Third Ground of Appeal
The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in laws ion making addition of Rs.1,17,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Fourth Ground of Appeal The CIT(A) has erred on facts in determining the tax liability without giving effect of the TDS already deducted under Section 194A as mentioned in 26AS amounting to Rs.43,263/-.”
3. As per the information in the case of the assessee in accordance with Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT it was found that the assessee has not filed any return of income and has carried out various transactions as per the details. Subsequently notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 16.02.2023 but the assessee has not filed return of income under Section 139 of the Act as well as in respect of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Various statutory notices were also issued but the same was not complied. Notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was sent to the concerned Bank to provide Bank statement. The Bank provided the same statement which was partly replied. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has withdrawn Rs.10,50,000/- and quantum of exact withdrawal was not determinable. The Assessing Officer inferred that the assessee has deposited Rs.1,17,00,000/- and failed to discharge his onus to satisfy the taxability of cash deposit during the year under consideration. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,17,00,000/- in respect of variation proposed in respect of income under the head unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made observation that the TDS of amount of Rs.1,06,982/- and Rs.5,65,493/- was detected and the same was treated as addition under the head Income from Other Sources.
Being aggrieved by eh Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not in India when the assessment took place and there is a delay of two days in filing the present appeal as well. The delay is condoned.
The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order despite of the evidences filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit.
The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. it is pertinent to note that the Assessment Order is passed under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act and the assessee has not given any details to the Assessing Officer at the relevant time as he was not in India. Before the CIT(A) the assessee engaged a Consultant, but the Consultant did not respond to the notices despite giving all the evidences to the Consultant and, therefore, the CIT(A)’s order is ex-parte order. It appears that there was genuine difficulty on the part of the assessee and, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences and adjudication of the issue contested by the assessee before the CIT(A). The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 12th February, 2025.