Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A and for income from other sources. The Assessing Officer had made the additions ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to notices after information about cash deposits was received. The CIT(A) also confirmed the order due to no response from the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 41 days which was condoned as the reasons were found to be bonafide. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not receive assistance from the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) and had not availed the opportunities provided. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the ex-parte order of the Assessing Officer. Whether the matter should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
133(6), 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
Year: 2017-18 Kuppusamy Vadivel Selvakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1197/A Kumbakonam Road, Ward 4, Keezhakollai Marungur, Cuddalore, Cuddalore. Tamil Nadu 607 103. [PAN:ENRPS9693P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 41 days. On perusal of the affidavit along with medical certificate, submissions of the ld. AR and ld. DR, we find the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 41 days is condoned.
The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer exparte of the assessee.
At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income declaring total income at NIL. The Assessing Officer found the assessee made cash deposits in the State Bank of India, Neyveli Branch. On getting information under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] from the Branch Manager, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, there was no response from the assessee as it is reflecting in page 7 of the assessment order. As there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add an amount of ₹.12,25,000/- under section 69A of the Act and also an amount of ₹.10,26,104/- under the head “income from other sources” vide order dated 29.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act.
The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). According to the ld. CIT(A), there was no response from the assessee and accordingly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer as it is clear from para 4 of the impugned order.
Before us, the ld. AR Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate submits that the assessee has no opportunity before the authorities below and the assessee is ready to prosecute his case if this Tribunal remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT opposed the same. She argued that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) has given ample opportunities to the assessee, but, the assessee failed to utilise the same. She drew our attention to para 4 of the assessment order and para 4 of the impugned order. She argued that the assessee does not deserve any opportunity and moreover there was no proof of agricultural income. Thus, the ld. DR prayed to dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.
After hearing both the parties, we find the Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A of the Act and income from other sources, which requires assistance; undoubtedly, there was no assistance from the assessee. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, the assessee could not avail the opportunities afforded by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) in furnishing required details relevant to the addition made therein, which clearly establishes that there is no assistance to the assessee the grounds raised before us. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, before the Assessing Officer. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd October, 2024 at Chennai.