RAM DULARI KANOJIA KALYAN SAMITI,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 11/12/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1071101120(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP) and filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs.2,40,471/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,81,826/- by making addition of Rs.37,41,355/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 11/12/2024, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard and materials available on record were perused. Learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In this case the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.37,41,355/- during demonetization period which was added entirely in the income of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee had submitted that the entire cash deposit made by the assessee is from fee received from students and cash withdrawal made earlier from time to time. The assessee also filed copy of bank statement. The assessee also submitted sample copies of fee receipts issued to students and other documents showing that the assessee is running school/junior college. However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the total cash deposited in the bank. On perusal of records, it is seen that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) have not given reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In response to a query from Bench, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that the issue in dispute may be restored back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.