KATARIYA PARASMAL PREMCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-9(2), CHENNAI

The registry has noted delay of 88 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated at paras 1 to 8 of condonation affidavit given by the Assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Assessee is an individual engaged in money lending business has filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.03.2018 declaring the total income of Rs.5,03,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Reason for selection was to verify ‘cash deposits during demonetization’ period. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was not able to justify the source for cash deposits are out of receipts from sundry debtors. Hence, ld.AO made an addition of Rs.15,00,000/- vide order dated 12.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act’ in short). Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits although assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) despite several notices. Assessee is in further appeal before us.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice in true spirit. Ld.CIT(A) issued first two notices dated 13.01.2021 and 04.05.2022 during Covid-19 period and others in 2023 after gap of almost 8 months which were inadvertently not noticed by the counsel. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(A), assessee will prosecute the appeal properly. Ld.CIT-DR relied upon the order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal.