GULLIPALLI RAM PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, BERHAMPUR

Shri N.Trinath Rao N.Trinath Rao, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted that during the course of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the assessee could not furnish the return of income and furnish submission regarding the credit entries in the bank accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, making addition of Rs.87,99,924/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had filed written submission stating the reason as to why he was not able to file the return of income and necessary details regarding the deposit in his bank account, which was not considered by the ld CIT(A) in proper perspective. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has not considered all the evidences before him. He therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to explain the nature of deposit before the Assessing Officer.

In reply, ld Sr DR supported the orders of lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act clearly shows that as the assessee had not filed his return of income, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee did not file the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made cash and other deposits of Rs.87,99,924/- in his bank accounts. Although various notices were issued to the assessee to P a g e 2 | 4 explain the nature of cash deposits in the bank account, the assessee failed to respond the notices, leading to assessment framed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by making total addition of Rs.87,99,924, representing the cash deposit in the bank account. In the first appellate proceedings also, the assessee only filed written submission by stating that the assessee is an unemployed person and had earlier savings to carry on some small business. The explanation of the assessee did not find favour by the ld CIT(A) and consequently, the assessment was upheld.

Before us, ld AR that he has all such documentary evidences regarding the source of money and deposit in the bank account and if one more opportunity is granted, he will produce the same before the Assessing officer. As the assessment order has been passed u/s.144/147 of the Act and during the appellate proceedings also, reassessment proceedings has been challenged before the ld CIT(A) and proper opportunity was not given to the assessee to represent his case, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication on merits as well as the legal ground for reopening of reassessment proceedings, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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