SACHINKUMAR RAJUBHAI PRANCHVANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against the order dated 28.12.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), and National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which in turn arises out of an assessment order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s. 144 of the Act.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1) Both lower authorities erred in ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case, whilst making an addition of Rs. 10,01,020/-.

Brief facts of the case that the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 3,08,130/-. Case of the assessee was manually selected for scrutiny under CBDT guidelines for cash deposits during demonetization period and notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act 1961 was issued on 29.09.2018 and served upon the assessee by e-mail ID mention on the ITR/latest email ID. Thereafter notice u/s.142 (1) of the Act was issued on 14.02.2019, 24.08.2019. 07.10.2019 and 21.10.2019 along with detailed questionnaire which was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notices u/s.142 (1) of the IT Act, the assessee did not submit any reply. The assessing officer noticed that assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs 10,67,320/- during demonetisation period in account 5989002100000325 with Punjab National Bank. A show cause notice dated 16.11.2019 issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish his explanations alongwith evidences regarding cash deposits during demonetization period.

The assesse failed to comply with the notices. Hence, the source of cash deposited Rs.10,67,320/-during period of demonetization and in earlier date Page 2 of 4 Sachinkumar R. Pranchavni remain unexplained by the assessee. Therefore, the undersigned has left with no other option but to complete the proceeding ex party u/s. 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. The income assessed at Rs. 13,09,150/- will an addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 13,09,150/-.

That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with following remarks: “7.3 In the face of complete non compliance even during the appellate proceedings, vide this office notice u/s. 250 dated 21.12.2023, the appellant was specifically asked to file his submissions in support of the grounds of appeal

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not comply with the notice. That the Ld. AR for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent his case before the lower authority.

On the contrary, the Ld.DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). However, the Ld. DR have no objection to the prayer of and the Ld. AR.

We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record, and also perused the order of Ld. CIT(A). We note that three notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the case but there was no compliance made by the assessee, as a result the, Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex- parte order. We note that there was no proper adjudication in this case, we Page 3 of 4 Sachinkumar R. Pranchavni accept the request of the Ld. AR for granting an opportunity to be heard. We also note that the assessment was ex-parte u/s. 144 of the Act. Thereafter, in the interest of justice, and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before the Lower Authority. We set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of Ld.JAO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.