Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18, disclosing Rs. 7,53,890/-. During scrutiny, the AO found unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 17,66,500/- made in F.Y. 2016-17, which the assessee attributed to the PMGKY scheme. The AO, not satisfied with the explanations, added the entire amount under section 69A, assessing the total income at Rs. 25,20,390/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's grounds of appeal, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to substantiate the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the disputed issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance, and if adequate opportunity should be provided to the assessee to explain the addition made under section 69A of the Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 69A, 143(2), 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 PADMAHSHALI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 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) 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. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 31.03.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.7,53,890/-. The case was Rudresh Ghanshyam Prabhu Tendulkar. selected for scrutiny under the CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data found that, the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank accounts aggregating to Rs.17,66,500/- in the F.Y.2016-17 and the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to furnish the details and sources of cash deposits. The assessee has filed the explanations and details mentioning the sources of deposits and the amount declared in PMGKY scheme. Whereas the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of the Act and made addition u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.17,66,500/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.25,20,390/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2019.
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 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. 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 Rudresh Ghanshyam Prabhu Tendulkar. merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. 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 the notices of hearing on various dates referred at Page 2 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 made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts and principles 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
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2025.