SHRI PRATAPBHAI HAMIRBHAI RATHOD,VILLAGE DUDANA, TALUKA KODINAR, DIST. GIR SOMNATH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH

That the Ld. AR of the assessee also draw out attention towards the judgement passed by the Supreme Court has, in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal filed after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause”

Brief facts of the case that assessee during the demonetization period, the assessee has deposited huge amount in the Dena Bank and from the quantum of cash deposit made by the assessee. That during the summons proceedings, the assessee filed return submission and stated that assessee was engaged in the business of Gol. The assessee also furnished the books of accounts, bank statement, and copy of purchase sales register, copy of stock register etc. on perusal of information received from Dena Bank. It is noted that the assessee deposited total cash of Rs. 18,00,000/-. However, during the demonetization period of Rs. 10,00,000/- was deposited in specific bank note(SPN note). That the assessee failed to filed return of income on the basis of books of account because it is calculated at Rs. 53,74,694/-, and income is estimated at the rate of 8% on total turnover, which comes to Rs. 4,29,980/- and an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- is made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, total assessed income is 14,29,980/-.

That the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 29.11.2019. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with following observation:

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not aware about the notices and hearing of the case and requested for one more opportunity should be given to the assessee.

On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noted that the several notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearings of the case. We note that the order of the CIT(A) is silent on service of notices upon the assessee. We further observed that the assessee had not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. AO. We noted that the assessment was framed u/s. 144 of the I. T. Act by the AO. In interest of justice, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before lower authority, we set aside the order of the Ld. AO and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits. After giving due opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is further directed to submit all the required documents in support of the income earned during the year.