NIVETHA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of textile business in the name of M/s Jai Sri Krishna Textiles. The assesse filed his return of income for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017- 18, declaring total income of Rs. 4,85,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued. Accordingly, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed at total income of Rs. 41,24,060/- after making an addition of Rs. 36,39,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices u/s.250 of the Act to the appellant through ITBA from time to time. Last notice was issued on 12.01.2024 requiring compliance on 17.1.2024. But no compliance was made. During the appeal proceedings, written Submission was not uploaded till the conclusion of the appeal proceedings and, therefore, the Statement of Facts filed by the appellant is taken as Written Submission. The Ld. CIT (A) on perusal of records, noticed that during the course of appellate proceedings, appellant had not filed or uploaded any response/written submissions in spite of six notices were issued to the appellant. The notices u/s 250 the Act was issued to the appellant on 17.02.2021 requiring compliance on 04.03.2021, on 29.09.2023 requiring compliance on 09.10.2023, on 03.11.2023 requiring compliance on 09.11.2023, on 15.11.2023 requiring compliance on 20.11.2023, and on 18.12.2023 requiring compliance on 02.01.2024, However, no reply/ submissions were uploaded in this office. The case was again fixed for hearing by issuing notice u/s 250 on 12.01.2024 requiring compliance on 17.01.2024 and again there is no response. In view of the above facts, elaborate discussion/analysis and conclusion of the A.O. in the Assessment order and no documentary evidence received from the appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings to rebut the finding of the AO, it is clear that the action of the appellant is nothing but is premeditated contumacious conduct, surreptitiously done for specific reasons for bringing unaccounted money of the appellant into the banking channel. This is clearly a tax evasion which is established from the above analysed facts and surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of probability. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer by adding a sum of Rs.36,39,000/-. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

Before us, none appeared for the assessee. 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.

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. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh 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.