Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agricultural cooperative society, failed to file its return of income for AY 2015-16. Upon detecting cash deposits of Rs. 95,00,760/-, the AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 and made an addition of the same amount as unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had posted the case for hearing on seven occasions, but the assessee failed to appear or provide any submissions. Considering the grounds of appeal and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148A, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Iragavaram Primary Agricultural Vs. Income Tax Officer, Coop Society, Ward-1, Iragavaram. Tanuku. PAN: AAABI0090C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri GVN Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Vice President:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075605469(1), dated11/04/2025 2 Iragavaram Primary Agricultural Coop Society arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society did not file the return of income for the AY 2015-16. In the case of the assessee, as per the information flagged and identified by the Board on Insight Portal of Income Tax Department, it was noticed that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 95,00,760/- during the FY 2014-15. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued order U/s. 148A and notice U/s. 148 dated 18/04/2022 was serviced on the assessee. In response, the assessee filed its return of income on 05/05/2022 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. Thereafter, statutory notices U/as. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were also served on the assessee. However, there was no response from the assessee and therefore, the Ld. AO completed the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 95,00,760/- towards unexplained money in the absence of any explanation with respect to the nature and source of the cash deposits. Thus, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 16/03/2024. 3 Iragavaram Primary Agricultural Coop Society Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex- parte. 3. The Ld. CIT(a) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 90,00,760/- made by the AO U/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that several opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee 4 Iragavaram Primary Agricultural Coop Society has appeared before the Ld. CIT (A) nor responded to the hearing notices issued. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on seven occasions. However, there was no response / representation on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing nor the assessee filed any details/ submissions with regard to the source of alleged cash deposits before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, the Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the prayer of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh and decide the case on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in 5 Iragavaram Primary Agricultural Coop Society accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.