RAM KUMAR MAURYA,BHADOHI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), BHADOHI, BHADOHI

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya v. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi TAN/PAN:BABPM1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.07.2024, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of the information in possession of the Income Tax Department that the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.12,84,330/- in his saving bank account No.28260100004067 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the statutory notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO), Ld. A.R. of the assessee appeared before the AO on 16.12.2019 and sought for adjournment. The AO adjourned the case for hearing to 17.12.2019, on which date nobody attended nor was any reply filed on behalf of the assessee. The AO obtained the bank account statement of the assessee from the concerned Bank under section 133(6) of the Act. Since there was no explanation from the side of the assessee with regard to the cash deposits of Rs.12,84,330/- as well as credit entry of Rs.1,78,444/-, totaling to Rs.14,62,774/- in the aforementioned bank account during the year under consideration, the AO treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee and added the same to the assessee’s total income under section 69 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,62,770/-.

2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.

2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1. BECAUSE the proceedings under section 147 of the Act have neither been validly initiated nor concluded in accordance with law, hence the entire proceedings are void- ab-initio and the order dated 29.03.2019 passed under section 144 of the Act alongwith the appellate order dated 22.07.2024 passed against the appellant deserves to be set aside.

2. BECAUSE the jurisdictional notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2019, alleged to have been issued was not served upon the appellant under due process of law as laid down under section 282 of the Act, affixture of the same without going the procedure laid under the Act amounts to improper or non-service of notice upon the appellant.

3. BECAUSE the return filed by the appellant on 23.12.2019 in compliance of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act 29.03.2019, disclosing an income of Rs.1,76,534/-u/s 69 of the Act on the overall turnover of Rs.14,18,700/- from business of plying of vehicles on rent for small distance having been left out from consideration by the ld. Assessing Officer, entire addition of Rs.14,62,770/- made by him while passing the ex-parte assessment order dated 24.12.2019 as also affirmed by the ex- parte impugned appellate authority order dated 22.07.2024 under section 250 of the Act.

4. BECAUSE no notice under section 143(2) having been issued by the Id. Assessing Officer before completing the assessment proceedings vide order dated 24.12.2019, entire proceedings against the appellant is vitiated being void-ab- initio and the addition made by him in the said assessment order which stood affirmed by the ex-parte impugned appellate authority order dated 22.07.3.2024 under section 250 of the Act is liable to be deleted.

5. BECAUSE the deposits in bank account having been duly disclosed by the appellant in his return filed in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the addition of Rs.14,62,774/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer as alleged unexplained investment by invoking section 69 of the Act.

6. BECAUSE the deposits in the bank account having been duly considered by the appellant in his return, the authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in adding Rs.14,62,774/- as alleged unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act is wholly erroneous.

7. BECAUSE the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant before the CIT(Appeals) in Form 35 had specifically opted out of receipt of notices/communication from his office through email but despite that no hard/physical copy of any notice intimating fixation of appeal was ever served upon the appellant, accordingly, the ex-parte impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by CIT(A) is in complete violation of principles of natural justice.

3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 308 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, stating therein that since the assessee was unaware of the appellate proceedings as also of passing of ex-parte order by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, no action was taken by the assessee and it was only when the local counsel apprised the assessee about the issuance of notice for recovery of demand issued by the Department, that the assessee came to know about the passing of the impugned order by the Ld. First Appellate Authority and immediately thereafter the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. The prayer of the Ld. A.R. was that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond the control of the assessee, which may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. had objected to the delay being condoned.

5.0 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.

6.0 During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that both the authorities below have passed ex-parte orders without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Ld. A.R. prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO and if an opportunity is given, the assessee will produce all the relevant documents relating to the cash deposits and credit entries in the bank account of the assessee.

7.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected to the restoration of the appeal to the file of the AO as prayed by the assessee and submitted that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

8.0 I have heard both he parties and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte orders qua the assessee, as the assessee was non-compliant to the notices issued by the authorities below. However, looking into these facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, I restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the Assessee to explain the source of cash deposits and credit entries in his bank account. I also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/11/2025.