Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एसएस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1448 & 1449/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Abdul Shukoor Sakira Banu, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 26-28, Rajaji Street, Ram Nagar, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 009. Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [PAN:BGBPS1381J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate but identical orders both dated 19.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Since the issue raised in both the appeals are similar and based on same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
In both the appeals, the assessee raised 7 common grounds of appeal, amongst which only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without there being proper opportunity to the assessee.
3. At the outset, we note that the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] determining total income of the assessee at ₹.3,86,68,305/- as against income of ₹.5,38,740/- for AY 2014-15 and ₹.60,98,94,702/- as against income of ₹.7,99,860/- for AY 2015-16, inter alia, making addition on account of unexplained cash deposited during the financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16 to the extent of ₹.3,81,29,565/- and ₹.60,90,94,842/- treating the same as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. On perusal of the assessment orders for both the assessment years at page 3, we note that the Assessing Officer held that the assessee neither complied with the show cause notice issued on 15.03.2022 for both the assessment years nor furnished any information or explanation, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment according to his best judgement in the absence of any explanation from the assessee. Likewise, on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 4 page No. 4, clearly shows that the assessee did not file any submissions/documentary evidences before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years.
The ld. AR Shri D. Anand, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed exparte order without considering any of the issues raised by the assessee on merits. He further submits that the assessee did not furnish any evidence during the course of assessment proceedings due to some unavoidable circumstances. Since in the impugned case, the source for deposit is explainable, the ld. AR requested to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as the assessee is ready to prosecute the case if the Tribunal afford an opportunity for both the assessment years.
The ld. DR Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT reported objection that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee failed to utilize the same.
As discussed above, we note from the assessment order as well as impugned order, it is established that there was no opportunity for the assessee in prosecuting his case, but, however, on the undertaken given by the ld. AR that the assessee is ready to prosecute the case before the Assessing Officer without fail, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration afresh for both the assessment years under consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim and the Assessing Officer shall conduct the assessment proceedings de novo. Thus, grounds Nos. 1 to 7 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th July, 2024 at Chennai.