Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised 7 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only effective issue arises for our consideration is to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without there being proper opportunity to the assessee in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
3. We note that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the whole sale business and runs proprietorship concern. The assessee declared total income of ₹.11,82,860/- and under scrutiny, the Assessing Officer determined the same at ₹.65,63,700/-, inter alia, making addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. On perusal of the assessment order vide para 6, we note that the Assessing Officer has issued three notices, but no compliance was made by the assessee, which means, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in the absence of any evidence regarding the addition made therein. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer for non- explanation of sources of deposit by way of documentary evidence, which is clear from para 5.3 of the impugned order.
4. Before us, the ld. AR Shri S.R. Srikrishna, CA filed paper book consisting of 309 pages and submits that the Accountant of assessee was suffering from Cardiac Vascular disease and due to his illness; the assessee could not able to prosecute before the Assessing Officer. He drew our attention to the medical certificates at page 1 of the paper book, submits that the case history of Accountant supports that he is unwell. He argued that the assessee is now ready to prosecute her case and referred to the evidences from page 35 to 309 of the paper book. Thus, the ld. AR prayed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute her case before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same and prayed to impose cost in case the Tribunal afford an opportunity to the assessee.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was no proper opportunity given by both the authorities below as it is visible from para 5.3 of the appellate order and para 3 & 4 of the assessment order. Since the addition was made under section 69A of the Act, in our opinion, the assessee is required to explain with the support of relevant documentary evidence. Now the assessee placed before us relevant documentary evidences like VAT registration certificate, abstract of turnover, copy of monthly returns filed with TNVAT, certificate issued by ICICI bank, bank statement, cash book, etc. As discussed above, all these were not filed before the Assessing Officer as the Accountant of the assessee was ill suffering from heart disease, which is supported by medical history from pages 1 to 33 of the paper book. Therefore, in view of the evidences filed before us supporting the claim of the assessee, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration subject to the condition of payment of ₹.5,000/- towards cost in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 12th June, 2024 at Chennai.