N.DEIVAKUNJARI,KUMBAKONAM vs. ITO WARD 1(3), KUMBAKONAM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Trichy, dated 29.04.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to confirmation of addition of ₹.2,10,08,000/-, which was treated as unexplained investments.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 18.05.2011 for the assessment year 2011-12 admitting total income of ₹.2,37,120/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on 27.06.2011. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.08.2012 and served on the assessee on 11.08.2012 posting the case for hearing on 31.08.2012. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 10.07.2013 and served on the assessee on 15.07.2013 calling further details to be filed on 25.07.2013. There was no proper response from the assessee. The case has been selected for scrutiny under CASS mainly to verify the source for huge cash deposits made into the SB account in the IDBI Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam. Accordingly, letter to the Branch Manager was issued and the relevant copy of the assessee’s transactions for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 was obtained. On perusal of the details received from the Bank, the Assessing Officer observed that that the assessee’s SB account No. is 369104000009652 and she has made a total deposits of ₹.2,10,08,000/-. All the deposits are in cash except interest payments credited to her account on 30.09.2010 of ₹.56,547/- and on 31.03.2011 of ₹.1,17,925/-. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act treating the entire deposits as unexplained investments and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity during the course of appellate proceedings and the ld. CIT(A) hurriedly concluded the exparte appellate order and prayed for grant of one more reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present her case. On the other hand, the ld. DR has not seriously objected to the above submissions.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the case was fixed on 23.01.2019 when the AR of the assessee Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode sought further time and a new notice was issued for 03.04.2019 posting the case for hearing on 15.04.2019. However, there was no attendance of the ld. AR on the said date. But, the ld. AR appeared on 25.04.2019 before the ld. CIT(A) but could not file any details or documents or proper explanation. Since the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for affording one more opportunity to the assessee to represent her case before the Department, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee should be given to meet the ends of natural justice. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the explanations with supporting documents and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Department in completing the assessment.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 30th November, 2021 in Chennai.