ABDULLAH ABOOBECKER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), TRIVANDRUM

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2016-17. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on 08.03.2023 directing the appellant to file response on or before 14.04.2023 and the order u/s. Abdullah Aboobeeker 148A(d) was passed on 29.03.2023 and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29.03.2023. Subsequently, the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 on 28.03.2024 at a total income of Rs. 87,48,750/- treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) contested that the order passed u/s. 148A(b) is illegal as the appellant was given a period less than 7 days to respond to the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and the objections filed by the appellant were not disposed of by the AO. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

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

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant had took a specific plea that the order passed u/s. 148A(d) is illegal, inasmuch as, the appellant was not afforded clear period 7 days to respond to the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and also took the plea that the AO had failed to dispose of the objections filed before passing the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate these ground of appeal. Since these grounds of appeal go to the very root of the matter, we are of the Abdullah Aboobeeker considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.