CHINCHOLIMATH MURAGAYYA VINAYAK,ATHANI, BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information and data analytics/ cash deposits data found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the HDFC Chincholimath Muragayya vinayak. Belagavi. bank account Athani Branch during the demonetization period and the assesse has filed the return of income on 14-09-2019 with total income of Rs.7,08,688/-.Further the notice U/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued and there was compliance. Whereas the A.O found that the assessee has made the cash deposit of Rs.68,93,945/- in the bank account in the F.Y.2017-18 and explanations were called to substantiate the deposits. Whereas the assessee has filed explanations/details pertaining to business income and professional income. The AO considering the information and evidences was not satisfied with the details to the extent of Rs.2,53,000/- and made the addition and assessed the total income of Rs.9,61,690/- and passed the order u/sec 144 of the Act dated 04.12.2019.

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 Chincholimath Muragayya vinayak. Belagavi. proceedings. Further the assesse has a good case on 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).

5.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 dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at Page 5 of the 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 addition 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 subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the Income Tax Department within one month from the date of receipt of the order and produce the proof of payment. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Chincholimath Muragayya vinayak. Belagavi. the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on the disputed issue and the assesse should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.01.2025.