Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Puducherry dated 23.12.2016 in 14 for the assessment year 2009-10 passed u/s.250(6) r.w.s.144 of the Act.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-
“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant.
2.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the source for the cash handed over to the assessee by his son was the sale consideration of some property.
2.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the interest received from the term deposits invested using the cash belonging to his son was credited to the son's account for servicing the loan granted to his son by the bank.
2.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that on maturity the proceeds were transferred to his son's account. Further the appellant has proved the identity of the source, capacity of the source to advance the money and genuineness of the transaction, hence no addition is called for in the hand of the appellant.
3. Appellant craves leave to adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 electronically on 30.03.2010, admitting total income of Rs.2,86,390/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and finally order U/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 29.12.2022, wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.15,00,000/- as unexplained investment.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee opportunity of being heard. He therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de-nova consideration.
The Ld.DR strongly opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR. He argued by stating that the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has given several opportunity to the assessee of being heard, however none appeared on behalf of the assessee, ar the time of hearing, hence the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) were compelled to pass ex-parte order. The Ld.DR further submitted that the assessee is resorting to delay tactics and therefore the matter may be heard on merit.
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. On perusing the file, it is apparent that the assessee had failed to co-operate before the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A) at the time of hearing. It is also revealed that several opportunities were provided by both the Revenue authorities to the assessee of being heard. It is also obvious that the assessee 4 is eluding to appear before the Revenue. In this circumstance, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the Ld.AR. However, in the interest of justice, I’m of the view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee in order to present his case before the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, I hereby remit back the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with directions to obtain a Remand Report from the Ld.AO and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced in the court on the 01st August, 2017.