PRITI PRATAP RAUT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(2)(5), MUMBAI

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, I proceed to dispose off the appeals ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

Registry has pointed out a delay of one day in filing the present appeal. The learned Authorised Representative has filed an application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that due to unavoidable circumstances there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal. Considering the statement in the delay condonation application, I condone the delay of one day and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit.

Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed her return of income on 5th August 2013, declaring total income of ` 3,82,970. As observed by the Assessing Officer, in response to the notices issued under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), neither any one appeared nor complied to such notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer invoking his power under section 144 of the Act and proceeded to complete the assessment ex–parte to the best of his judgment. While doing so, he treated the cash deposit of ` 6,79,100, in the bank account as unexplained and added back to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition by filing appeal before the first appellate authority, however, the addition was sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of assessee’s appeal ex–parte.

Heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the disputed addition is on account of cash deposit made in the bank account during the year under consideration. The Departmental Authorities while making addition have alleged that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposit. Undisputedly, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the first appellate authority, the assessee had appeared to explain her case. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, cash deposits have been added to the income of the assessee. However, considering the fact that both the assessment order as well as the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) are ex–parte, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit by furnishing supporting evidence in support of her claim. For enabling her to do so, I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer, in her own interest, and furnish the supporting evidence to explain the source of cash deposit. In case of any further default on the part of the assessee in appearing before the Assessing Officer to explain her case, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to decide the issue on the basis of material on record and in 4 Priti Pratap Raut accordance with law. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.