DABRELA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

On the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the applicant society does not enjoy any internet facility, being situated in the remote area of the State. 3. Ld. AR has further submitted that the internet related work used to be dealt with by the accountant cum return filler based on it server, Ajmer, but he never informed the representative of the society about the notices or communications from Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the prayer is that the delay of 19 days may be condoned. 4. The application is accompanied by an affidavit, but the said affidavit is an unattested affidavit, and therefore, no reliance can be placed thereon. However, Ld. DR for the department has not opposed hearing of the appeal on merits, after condoning a short delay of 19 days. 5. Having regard to the short delay, and the issues involved, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and to hear on merits. 6. On merits, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the matter may be remanded to Learned CIT(A), as the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings as well as assessment proceedings. 7. Vide assessment order dated 22.01.2024, relating to the assessment year 2019-20, addition of Rs. 1,38,66,000/- came to be made u/s 69 A of the Act, because of the unexplained money as discussed therein.

Learned CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while observing that there was no response from the appellant to the notices issued by the office of CIT(A) to the assessee u/s 250 of the Act, and no evidence relating to merits of the case was submitted even in the appellate proceedings. 9. As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that the matter may be remitted to the Assessing Officer so as to enable the assessee to participate in the proceedings for effective adjudication of the issues involved. 10. On the other hand, ld. DR for the department has submitted that from the grounds of appeal, it cannot be made out as to what is the prayer made by the assessee, while challenging the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A). 11. As is available from the assessment order, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, and notice u/s 148 was issued, but the assessee did not furnish return of income. In para 2, the Assessing Officer specified the dates of the notices issued by his office to the assessee and failure of the assessee in responding to the notice dated 14.09.2023, 04.10.2023, 16.10.2023 and 16.10.2023. 4 Dabrela Dugdh UtpadakSahkari Samiti Ltd., Ajmer.

It may be mentioned here that the assessee-appellant is an Association of Persons. As per information available to the department, during the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have made cash withdrawals of Rs. 2,77,32,000/-. Even though the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices to the Bank of Baroda. From the reply of the bank, it transpired that the assessee was into the business of dairy products. The Assessing Officer arrived at that conclusion that for want of written submission or any documentary evidence as regards nature and source of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 1,38,66,000/- during financial year 2018-19, he had no option but to treat the same as unexplained income and to add the same amount to the total income of the assessee. 13. From the above, it transpires that despite several opportunities, the assessee failed to comply with the same or to participate in the assessment proceedings. While coming to the appellate proceedings before Learned CIT(A), from the impugned order it transpires that 8 notices u/s 250 of the Act, were issued to the assessee, but the assessee opted not to participate in the appellate proceedings or to submit any response thereto.

As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant has requested for another opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer so that the assessee is able to substantiate its claim, as regards, nature of source of cash deposit. 15. It is significant to note that in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, the assessee has put up the plea that its accountant-cum return filler did not apprise the assessee of the notices/communication. No affidavit of the said accountant cum return filler has been filed. But, having regard to the issues involved, we deem it a fit case, where the assessee be granted another opportunity of being heard. 16. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the issues involved, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.