MUKESH KUMAR YADAV,PURNEA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

(A.Y. 2018-2019) Mukesh Kumar Yadav 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who did not file his return of income for AY 2018-19. Information was available that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.4,48,96,850/- in Punjab National Bank. Therefore, after providing opportunity to the assessee under section 148A(b) of the Act, an order under section 148A(d) was passed on 27.03.2022 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee by the ld. Assessing Officer on 28.03.2022. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee did not file his return of income. The assessee did not adduce any evidence that the deposits in its Bank account Rs.4,48,96,850/- does not belong to the assessee Getting no response from the side of assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex- parte under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.4,48,96,850/- as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the total income of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 19th November, 2024.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider the case on merit, rather he just upheld the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.4,48,96,850/- as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

We have perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same (A.Y. 2018-2019) Mukesh Kumar Yadav breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.