Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in wholesale and retail grocery business, did not file ITR for AY 2017-18. The AO, upon detecting cash deposits and unexplained credits and receiving no compliance to a notice u/s 142(1), made additions u/s 69A and determined income on a presumptive basis under section 144. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to continued non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in appeal; Validity of ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) without adequate opportunity, violating natural justice; Correctness of additions made under section 69A and income assessed on presumptive basis.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 250, Section 69A, Section 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 07.04.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2025 ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ,JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Nagpur passed u/sec144 and u/sec 250 of the Act.
At the time of hearing, it was found that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are Sanila Mol. reasonable and sufficient cause was explained and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the additions u/sec69A of the Act and income determined under presumptive basis.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is engaged in the business of whole sale and retail grocery items and has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2017- 18.The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data found that, the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank accounts in the F.Y.2016-17 and the notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to furnish the details and sources of cash deposits and there was no compliance. Whereas the A.O found that the assesse has made the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.5,34,000/- in the bank account in the F.Y.2016-17 and explanations were called to substantiate the deposits and further other credits in the bank account were remain unexplained. Since, no explanations/details were filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of Sec.144 of the Act and made addition of (i) cash deposits of Rs.5,34,000/- u/sec69A of the Act and (ii) income determined under presumptive basis of Rs.6,58,808/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.11,92,808/- and passed the order u/sec 144 of the Act dated 12.12.2019.
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 compliance by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assesse has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record and none appeared on behalf of the assesse. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at Page 5 Para 4of the CIT(A) order but there was no 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 assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the disallowances by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the principles of natural Sanila Mol. justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.04.2025.