Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on information of cash deposits during demonetization, the AO issued a notice under section 142(1). As the assessee failed to comply, the AO completed an ex-parte assessment under section 144, adding Rs.18,48,200/- as unexplained money under section 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
The ITAT condoned a 21-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's medical reasons. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, instead of deciding it on merits, even though the assessee failed to appear. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a sufficient opportunity of hearing, and if the matter should be remitted back for fresh consideration on merits.
Sections Cited
144, 142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/107103346(1) dated 09.12.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18 arising out of order passed under section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 31.10.2019.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that the assessee could not file the appeal due to viral fever with Fibromyalgia (Medical certificate filed). He is under treatment and was bed rest during the period from 20.02.2025 to 20.03.2025 and pleaded that delay may be condoned. Ld. DR not objected to the submissions of the assessee.
We have heard both the sides and we find that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay, accordingly the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period, notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Assessee failed to comply to the notices. Therefore, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.18,48,200/- as unexplained money under section 69A of Page No. 2 the Act. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) passed exparte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
On being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant and in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.18,48,500 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period.
Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”
At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to pursue his case before the Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. DR on the other hand objected to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee, however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Under these circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A) had no other
Page No. 3 option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, Ld. DR pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard both the sides and perused the record and gone into the orders of the Revenue Authorities. On examining the facts of the case, we find that though Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the given dates of hearing. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) left with no other option except to pass ex-parte order based on the material available on record. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, we find strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. Therefore, considering the prayer and the submissions of the Ld. AR and the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and remit back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to consider afresh in accordance with law. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld.Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate
Page No. 4 orders in 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (िी. दुर्ाा राि) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) (V. DURGA RAO) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 12/06/2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to :- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Aluri Yogendra Kumar {L/R of (Late) Aluri Madhusudhana Rao D.No. 1-64, Mandadam Thulluru, Guntur – 522503 Andhra Pradesh
रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer – Ward -2(3) Income Tax Office Lakshmipuram Main Road Guntur – 522006 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम/DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल/ Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
Page No. 5