SARAVANAN KOMALA VALLI,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (3),, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, dated 28.05.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. Besides challenging various issues on merits, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has mainly challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12, despite the assessee made cash deposits amounting to ₹.11,17,800/-. Having requisite belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act for filing return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 besides calling details by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Since there was no response, the Assessing Officer passed best judgement assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and brought to tax the entire amount of cash deposits of ₹.11,17,800/- by treating the same as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since there was no representation from assessee’s side, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised in the appeal on merits and prayed for suitable directions for adjudicating the issues on merits by giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee for presenting its case before the authorities below.

On the other hand, the ld. DR did not seriously objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the addition made under section 69 of the Act, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the appellate order, we find that despite issuance of various notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since, there was no response from the assessee after receipt of hearing notice, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. Except reproducing the grounds raised

Vide order dated 16.04.2018 in W.P. No. 8126 of 2018 in the case of N.S. Mohan v. ITAT, wherein, by referring to Rule 24 & Rule 25 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court set aside the exparte order of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to consider the matter on merits and take a fresh decision. In these facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the assessee to file complete details requiring for assessment before the Assessing Officer and thereafter, after considering the material evidences, etc., as may be furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. In case, the assessee failed to furnish any details, the addition made in the assessment order already passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act stands confirmed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 28th November, 2019 in Chennai.