SHRI MOHMMAD SLEEM MEER,BANDIPORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee, engaged in gold jewelry and textiles, did not file an ITR for AY 2014-15. Information revealed a cash deposit of Rs. 3.19 crores, leading to reassessment proceedings and an addition under Section 69 by the AO for unexplained cash deposits, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance and lack of evidence. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, citing illness and non-receipt of hearing notices as reasons for non-appearance before lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on its merits due to the assessee's non-representation and lack of documentary evidence. In the interest of justice and to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee is directed to submit all necessary documents and cooperate during the appellate proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 3.19 crores as unexplained cash deposit under Section 69 was justified, and if the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 148, 148(A)(b), 44AB, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated 24.05.2023 passed u/s 147/144B of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2 I.T.A. No.674/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by confirming the additions made by the AO to the total income of the appellant. This is bad in law and needs to be reversed.
The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by dismissing the appeal. This is against the law and the order passed by the CIT(A) relooked into.
That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, modify and delete any ground of appeal.”
Brief facts emerging from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the
business of gold jewelery and textiles at Bandipor, Jammu & Kashmir. The assessee
has not filed any return for the year under appeal and on the basis of information in
possession of the Assessing Officer, that the assessee has deposited cash in bank
amounting to Rs.3.19 cores, proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of
section 148(A)(b) of the Act and after due procedure, notice has been issued u/s 148
on 26.06.2022 in respect to which return has been filed by the assessee.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished written
submissions along with the financial statements for the year under appeal where it is
observed by the Assessing Officer, that the assessee has not substantiated his case by
documentary evidences and in absence of any purchase and sales invoices regarding
business carried out by the assessee, the genuineness of the transactions could not be
3 I.T.A. No.674/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 established. In spite of the admitted turnover of the assessee being 5.75 crores as per
his financials, no tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act has been uploaded in the
portal. As such, considering the lack of factual evidences, the Assessing Officer
completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.3.21 crores ‘(which includes the
addition of Rs.3.19 crores u/s 69 of the Act)’.
The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the ld.
CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal in absence of any response or representation by
the assessee in course of appellate proceedings by observing as follows:
“11. Thus, I find that the appellant has not been able to substantiate the sources of cash deposit with documentary evidence. The appellant has not uploaded any documentary evidence to explain the sources of cash deposited. Accordingly, I do not agree with the contentions of the appellant and hold that Ld AO has correctly treated the cash deposited in the savings bank account as income from undisclosed sources. Grounds of the appellant are dismissed.”
It is also seen that the notices of hearing were issued on various dates from the
office of the ld. first appellate authority but there has not been any compliance to
such notices.
Now, the matter is in appeal before the Tribunal and the ld. AR of the assessee
has filed a paper book containing the computer print out of cash book for the entire
financial year along with the copy of its tax audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD
4 I.T.A. No.674/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 and submitted that the assessee was seriously ill and was under continuous medical
treatment in various hospitals, in support of which he has filed copies of medical
documents which relates to the period of June and July, 2018 and submits that since
the assessee was medically ill he could not appear before the Assessing Officer in
course of assessment proceedings and the medical treatment continued and he could
not appear before the ld. CIT(A) in course of appellate proceedings and at the same
time he also says that he has not received any notice of hearing in e-mail id provided
in Form No. 35 and as such he prays that another opportunities of hearing may be
given so that he could place necessary documents for consideration and proper
adjudication.
The ld. DR has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A)
for fresh adjudication though, however, he has pointed out that the medical
certificates and documents pertains to the period of 2018 where as the assessment
order and the appellate order pertains to the period of 2024 and this medical
certificate has got no applicability.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record
and we find that in the instant case, in absence of any representation by the assessee
before the ld. CIT(A), the issue has not been decided on merits of the case in absence
of any documentary evidences before him. We also find that the matter is not
5 I.T.A. No.674/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 adjudicated on merits on the grounds contained in Form No. 35. As such, in the
interest of justice, we remanded the matter back to the files of the ld. CIT(A) for
fresh adjudication on merits.
The assessee is directed to file all necessary documents in support of his case
and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings for proper disposal. The assessee
should be allowed proper opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 07.07.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
