SHRIDATT SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT MUMBAI,MUMBAI - PRABHADEVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed.”

Fact in brief is that assessing officer has referred Actionable Information Monitoring System (AIMS) of ITBA system that assessee had made cash deposit during the demonetization period i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 but the assessee has not filed Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the return of income. However, the assessee had failed to make any Shridatt Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit A.Y. 2017-18 compliance to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessing officer has made ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act and added the cash deposit amounting to Rs. 90,32,210/- and other credit entries of Rs. 59,42,580/- totaling to Rs. 1,49,74,790/- appearing in the bank account of the assessee to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.

The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that assessee has not made any compliance to the notices issued by the assessing officer u/s 142(1) of the Act and assessee has also not submitting any petition in support of additional evidences filed under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that it was apprised to the ld. CIT(A) that notices issued by the assessing officer were received by the office‘s’ unauthorized person i.e. peon of the assessee and same was not communicated to the assessee therefore no compliance could be made before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities.

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Assessment in the case of the assessee was finalized ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee had not made any compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) by the assessing officer, therefore, during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), Shridatt Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit A.Y. 2017-18 the assessee had filed the relevant details along with copies of documents which could not be filed before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee had neither made any compliance to the notices issued by the assessing officer and also nor filed the petition in support of additional evidences filed by the assessee. In this regard, we have perused the written submission filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as placed in the paper book wherein assessee had filed application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules before the ld. CIT(A) submitting that due to non-communication of the notices issued by the assessing officer the assessee could not file the details and documents during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee has requested the ld. CIT(A) to admit the same as additional evidences for adjudicating the appeal on merit since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for producing those documents before the assessing officer. However, we find that the First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without controverting reasons and circumstances cited in the application filed by the assessee under Rule 46A as discussed supra in this order. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on merit as contemplate u/s 250(6) of the Act after taking into consideration the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that adequate opportunity be provided to the assessee. The assesse is also directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.