Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an individual, filed a return for AY 2017-18. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) and made an addition of Rs. 47,48,000/- for unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) subsequently disposed of the appellant's appeal ex parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had a sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A), as hearing notices were sent via email and went to the spam folder, unnoticed. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeal ex parte, or if there was a reasonable cause for the appellant's non-appearance warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 09.08.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 20.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 9,18,540/- . Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, SA 186 M.P. Manoharan Ward-3, Kannur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 20.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 57,90,234/-. While doing so, the AO made addition on account of cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBN) made during the demonetisation period of Rs. 47,48,000/- for failure of the appellant to explain the source.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order disposed of the appeal exparte for non- prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
It is submitted during the course of hearing that the appellant could not put in appearance before the CIT(A), as the hearing notices were served through email, which went to the spam folder. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of AO.
On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR has not raised any serious objection.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the proceedings before the CIT(A) were taken up during the Covid-19 pandemic period except one notice dated 16.12.2023. Furthermore, in the absence of hearing SA 186 M.P. Manoharan notice, which were served through email and went unnoticed by the appellant, the appellant could not put in appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from putting in appearance before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing the assessee.
Since the appeal is disposed of, the stay petition filed by the assessee becomes infructuous.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes and stay application is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2025.