HUSSAIN THEPARAMBIL FAISAL,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual. No return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2017-18. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit in specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetisation period, the ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling upon the appellant to Hussain Theparambil Faizal file return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 142(1) nor the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO proceeded with making best judgement assessment by making addition of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period as unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act.

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

At the outset, I find that the CIT(A) had issued the notice thorough email. The SOP issued by the Department mandates that when the appellant had not complied with the notices sent through email, notice should be issued through alternate method of service of notice, i.e., through physical mode, which the CIT(A) had failed to do. Therefore, in the interest of justice the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose the appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.