SRI RANGASAMY GOUNDER JEWELLERY,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm formed on 23.03.2016. The assessee firm is a family concern comprising of two partners who are Husband and wife. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 in response to notices under section 142(1) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) declaring a total income Rs.28,300/-. The main partner of the firm Shri NR Thirumurthy has been ailing for some time due to ill health and had not been in a position to respond to the notices in time. The assessee has not complied with the conditions mentioned in notice u/s 142(1). The assessee has filed the return of income u/s 142(1). However, the assessment proceeding in this case was initiated u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 on 25.02.2019. Thereafter, the provision of section 144 was invoked in this case. The assessee has deposited Rs.15,61,500/- during the demonetization period and has not offered any material evidences in support of the deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee was requested to furnish sources for the cash deposits and onus is on the assessee to prove that the sources for cash deposits are form disclosed source. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever from the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained and undisclosed. Accordingly, the entire cash deposits Rs. 15,61,500/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment is completed u/s 144 Income Tax Act, 1961 as under:

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not followed the principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given to appellant, appellant would file evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.DR-JCIT pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to file evidence before the ld. first appellate authority.

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 to file documents/evidence clarifying the source for cash deposits. We find that most of notices sent by ld.CIT(A) were during Covid-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal on merits.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th August, 2024 at Chennai.