Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.06.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.
At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee took us through the exparte order of the AO dated 07.11.2019 which has been :-2-: ITA. No: 2157/Chny/2024 passed u/s.144 of the Act, wherein the assessee is an individual, had not filed return of income u/s.139(1) or 139(4) of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18. As per the information available with the department the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.18,52,000/- during the demonetisation period in Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Chennai. The notice u/s.142(1) was issued to assessee on 19.01.2018 requesting to file the return of income but not complied with. The department had issued a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the bank and obtained the details of deposit made to bank account and found that Rs.38,77,122/- was deposited during the A.Y. 2017-18. Further, the AO issued notices by giving many opportunities and also SCN u/s.144 on various dates to the assessee along with notice of summon u/s.131 of the Act. However, assessee chose to be silent by non- compliance. In response to notice dated 12.09.2019, the assessee gave certain details, which were incomplete and not convinced to the AO. Since, the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, the AO passed exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act, with the available details / information considering the entire deposit of Rs.38,77,122/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and brought to tax. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC with a delay.
:-3-: ITA. No: 2157/Chny/2024
The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, even after providing many opportunities to the assessee by passing an order dated 19/06/2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an aged individual and the AO and that of the Ld.CIT(A) have passed orders without the participation of the assessee and thereby prayed for providing one more opportunity by remanding the case to AO for denovo assessment.
Per contra, the ld.DR argued that the assessee was negligent and had not even filed a return of income even after issuing notices. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the materials available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessment order passed by the AO was exparte and the ld.CIT(A) also has dismissed the appeal without participation of the assessee in the appeal proceedings. Since, exparte order has been passed by the AO we deem it fit to set
:-4-: ITA. No: 2157/Chny/2024 aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.