Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 11,16,000/- during demonetization. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 144 after the assessee failed to file a return or respond to notices, and determined the total income at Rs. 74,46,620/-. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes due to alleged deficiencies and lack of response.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued a deficiency letter which was reportedly responded to by the appellant, contrary to the CIT(A)'s observation of no response. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission of details in the ITBA portal and the Revenue's inability to controvert the claim.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and not admitting the appeal without proper consideration of the appellant's submissions and evidence.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 142(1), 133(6), 69A, 115BBE, 249(4)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 23.02.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 144 of the Act dated 14.11.2019. Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as under:
1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in deciding appeal ex- parte even though no notices were served on the appellant in the designated email stated to be as bhadreshraj0601@gmail.com in Form No.35 but no sinhd5260@gmail.com which was not a specified email ID.
A.Y 17-18 Dharmendrasinh H Raj 2. The Ld. CIT(A)NEFA erred on facts and in law in not admitting the appeal of the appellant in view of provisions of section 249(4) without appreciating that complete information was furnished in submission dated 01.12.2021.
Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.74,46,620/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE on account of credit of equivalent amount in the bank accounts as unexplained income of the appellant.”
Facts of the case in brief are that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.11,16,000/- in his bank account during demonetization period. The assessee did not file return in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, AO called for further details u/s 133(6) of the Act from the HDFC Bank Ltd. Bharuch and found that there was total credit of Rs.74,46,620/- in the bank account. Since assessee did not comply with any of the notices, order u/s 144 was passed determining total income at Rs.74,46,620/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) found deficiency in Form-35 and issued deficiency letter stating that tax on the returned income has not been paid and the particulars of payments are not mentioned. Thereafter, he invoked provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act and did not admit the appeal. He dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book and submitted that the assessee had filed various replies to the CIT(A), which had not been considered by him. He enclosed copy of the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement and submitted that written submission and various details had been filed before the CIT(A) in the First Appeal Proceedings, which have been totally ignored by the CIT(A). He, therefore, requested that the matter may be set
On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He, however, submitted that the Bench may pass the order as it thinks fit.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record carefully. We find that the AO passed an order u/s 144 after failure of assessee to file return of income in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The appellant did not respond to the notices issued to him. However, AO collected information from bank and added the total credits including the cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) issued deficiency letter which was evidently responded to by the appellant. However, he had mentioned that there was no response from the appellant and, accordingly, he did not admit the appeal and dismissed it for statistical purposes. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book and enclosed details to show that appellant had uploaded various details in the ITBA portal and, therefore, it is not correct to observe that the appellant did not file any reply. The Ld. Sr-DR has not been able to controvert the claim of the Ld. AR of the appellant. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for re- adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to appellant. The appellant is also directed to be vigilant and file necessary details
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 25/09/2025 in the open court.