Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file the return of income for A.Y.2012-13. The Assessing Officer, based on information, found cash deposits totaling Rs.1,42,08,287/- in the F.Y.2011-12, subsequently making an addition under Section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition and dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order but acknowledged that the assessee had challenged the addition under Section 69A and there could be valid reasons for non-appearance. Granting another opportunity based on natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the disputed issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be provided adequate opportunity and is expected to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act ex-parte, denying the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 250, 69A, 148, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALIShri Govind Sharad Raikar,
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 16.06.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 17.06.2025 ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec143(3)r.w.s147 and U/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal
challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition u/se 69Aof the Act by the Assessing Officer.
2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR brought to the knowledge of the bench, that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has S.A.No.7/PAN/2025 Shri.Govind Sharad Raikar. filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2012-13.The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data found that the assesse has made cash deposits in three bank accounts aggregating to Rs.1,42,08,287/- in the F.Y.2011-12. The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act on 30.03.2019 and there was no proper compliance. Further notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to furnish the details and the assessee has filed the explanations on 29.12.2019 dealt at Para 5 of the order. Whereas the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and made an addition u/sec69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.1,42,08,287/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) r.w.s147 of the Act dated 30.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no proper compliance by the assesse to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the assessing officer and 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings. Further the assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities and relied on the factual paper book.Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no compliance nor appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assesse is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and passed the ex parte order. The CIT(A) has issued only two notices of hearing referred at Page10 of the order and there was no proper response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition u/sec69A of the Act made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts and principles S.A.No.7/PAN/2025 Shri.Govind Sharad Raikar. of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the A.O and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assesse should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the Appeal. And, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assesse for statistical purpose.
In the result, the Stay application filed by the assessee is infactious and is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2025.