UTTARA VENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Chennai, dated 06.03.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

Shri Abishek Murali, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that there was a deposit of ₹12,82,390/- in ABN Amro Bank. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee’s husband Shri V. Ramakrishna is engaged in the business of purchase of satellite rights for movies. The cash belongs to the assessee’s husband was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee could not explain the same before the CIT(Appeals) since the notice for hearing was not received by the assessee due to change of address. Therefore, the Ld. representative submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to produce relevant material regarding the source for deposit in the bank account.

On the contrary, Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) issued repeated notices to the assessee. However, the assessee has not responded to the same, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) decided the matter on merit. According to the Ld. D.R., the transaction in ABN Amro Bank discloses a deposit of ₹12,82,390/-. The financials of the assessee’s husband were not produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(Appeals). In the absence of any material, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Ld. D.R. further submitted that if at all the matter needs to be remanded back, it may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the Assessing Officer can consider the entire material that may be produced by the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee claims that she could not appear before the CIT(Appeals) since the notice for hearing was not received by her due to change of address. The fact remains that there was a deposit of ₹12,82,390/- in the bank account and the assessee is expected to establish the source for deposit. Since the assessee could not appear before the CIT(Appeals) due to change of her residence, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative, the original authority being the Assessing Officer, he has to examine the material that may be filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter on the basis of the material that may be filed by the assessee. Thereafter, he shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.