Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Vikram Fashion, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.9, R.C. Complex, Income Tax, Sixty Feet Road, Circle 1, Velliyankadu, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 604. [PAN: AAHFV 3853D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Bhupendran, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 2012.2024 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 01.10.2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20.
Brief facts of the case are that as per information available through insight portal for the A.Y.2019-20 was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT under (RMS), the assessee had made export transactions amounting to Rs.5,45,72,400/-, cash Deposit at Rs 20,00,000/-, time deposit of Rs. 14,58,500/-, cash deposits and withdrawals including through bearer's cheque at RS.74,95,000/- and interest of RS.3,17,904/- maintained with Karur Vyasa Bank Ltd. during the year under consideration. Further, the assessee had not made any compliance during the course of proceedings u/s 148A therefore, the case was under scrutiny and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21/03/2023. The assessee had filed Income Tax Return for the year under consideration on 24/03/2023 declaring nil income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 21/03/2023. The assessee stated that he had made cash/ credit entries of Rs. 18,77,28,936/- but the assessee had not filed any source with documentary evidence with regard to the amounts/entries totalling to Rs.14.15,08,764/ Hence, the amount of cash/ credit entries amounting to Rs.14,15,08,7641- remained unexplained and the same was stated out of the old loans received, amount received from relative, old advances received for which the assess has no documentary evidence. The source of regarding balance amount of Rs. 4,62,20,172 has been explained by the assessee which is accepted. Assessee further challenged the order of assessment u/s u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who proceeded ex-parte and dismissed the appeal on merits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee has inadvertently not received the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) hence, asessee failed to avail opportunity to file evidence and documents to substantiate his explanation regarding deposits. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
4. Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) on account of short notices. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh hearing of appeal after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence, confirmations and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of appeal as per law. We make it clear that all the issues are kept open before the ld.CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th day of December, 2024 at Chennai.