NISHAD MOOTHEDAM MUHAMMADALI,VAZHAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2019-20 was filed by the appellant. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs. 1,35,92,600/- and withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3,73,10.715/-, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aluva Nishad Moothedam Muhammadali (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 05.03.2023. The said notice was not complied with by the appellant. In the circumstances, the AO passed order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act on 28.03.2023. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2023. The appellant complied with the notice u/s. 148 seeking certain information. In the circumstance the AO had completed best judgement assessment u/s. u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 01.02.2024 at a total income of Rs. 5,09,03,315/-. While doing so, the AO treated the entire cash deposits made in the bank accounts of ICICI Band and South Indian Bank and cash withdrawals from the said banks aggregating to Rs. 5,09,03,315/- as unexplained money of the appellant.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the appeal was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.

We heard the ld. CIT-DR and perused the material on record. The AO made addition of cash deposits as well as cash withdrawals in the best judgement assessment order passed by him. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order an appeal was filed before Nishad Moothedam Muhammadali the CIT(A) raising 8 grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal, inter alia, includes challenge of the very validity of the notice issued u/s. 148A of the Act as well as challenging the assessment order on the ground of violation of the prescribed procedures. However, the CIT(A), without adjudicating all the grounds of appeal, merely confirmed the action of the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.