Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is in appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the Learned CIT(A), which sustained an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The addition was related to significant cash deposits in bank accounts during the assessment year 2015-16.
Held
The Tribunal held that it was a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to pay costs.
Key Issues
Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's claim of being prevented from participating due to non-communication of notices.
Sections Cited
69A, 148, 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 884/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Assessee was in appeal before Learned CIT(A), while challenging assessment order dated 21.03.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2015-16. Said appeal came to be dismissed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, on 19.03.2025, thereby sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur 2. As per assessment order dated 21.03.2022, an addition of Rs. 1,31,78,470/- was made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as the assessee was found to have made huge cash deposit- amounting to Rs. 14,99,000/- in his bank account with Axis Bank Limited and Rs. 1,16,79,470/-, in his bank account with Indusland Bank Limited.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. Contentions 4. The only submission made by Ld. AR for the appellant is that the assessee-appellant could not comply with the notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, and that in order to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard, the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The matter is sought to be remanded to the Assessing Officer, as the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings as well. In support of his submission, Ld. AR has submitted today before us, affidavit of the assessee-appellant.
Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur 6. Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the notices issued for the purposes of assessment proceedings were also physically served upon the assessee , but even then he chose not to comply with the notices. As regards non compliance before Learned CIT(A), Ld. DR has submitted that two notices were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), but the assessee remained non compliant. Learned DR has no objection to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer, but, according to her, a trend has developed not to appear before the Assessing Officer and/or the CIT(A), and ultimately, to make a request before the Tribunal for remand of the matter, as a result whereof precious time of the department is wasted. Discussion 7. So far as assessment proceedings are concerned, in his affidavit, the assessee has testified that the statutory notices were issued by the department on the email ID of his previous counsel, but, said counsel did not inform him, and as such, he was prevented from participating in the assessment proceedings. In this regard, when we refer to the assessment order, in para 4, the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that firstly the assessee did not comply with notice u/s 148 of the Act; and then he failed to reply the Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur detailed questionnaire issued to him by way of two notices dated 15.12.2021 and 17.01.2022, even though said statutory notices were “physically served” upon the assessee. It is noteworthy that in the affidavit, the assessee has not denied factum of personal service of the notices upon him, through designated verification unit of the department. In para no. 1 and 2 of the affidavit, the assessee has put forth the factum of non communication of notices to him by his previous counsel, who had admittedly received the same on his email ID. In this regard, we find that the assessee has failed to explain non compliance before the Assessing Officer after “personal service” of notices upon him as well. As regards non communication of the receipt of notices from the office of Assessing Officer, the appellant has not submitted affidavit of the concerned counsel to substantiate his claim.
As regards the appeal proceedings, Ld. AR for the appellant has admitted that two notices dated 30.10.2023 and 10.12.2024 were served upon the assessee-appellant, but submitted that due to personal reasons and circumstances, beyond the control, he could not reply said notices. However, in the affidavit, the assessee-appellant has not specified any personal reason and circumstances, which is said to have prevented Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur him from participating in the appeal proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee was diligently perusing the matter.
As noticed above, Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant has requested for an opportunity of being heard so that he is able to comply with all the directions issued by the Assessing Officer, for the purpose of effective adjudication of the issue involved i.e. cash deposit in his bank accounts.
In the given facts and circumstances, having regard to the nature of the issue involved i.e. the unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee, we deem it a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer, as even Ld. DR for the department has no objection, in the given situation, for its remand to the Assessing Officer. We have been informed that for non compliance with the notices issued by the AO, proceedings were conducted u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, vide order dated 15.09.2022, and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. In the given situation, as regards non compliance of the notices issued by Learned CIT(A) , we deem it a fit case to burden the assessee with costs of Rs.2,000/- only. Result 11. In view of the discussion and findings, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Shri Sandeep Natani, jaipur the Learned CIT(A), the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard, in accordance with law. Assessee to deposit costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and to submit the receipt before the Assessing Officer before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2025.