CHANDRAPRABHA,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-1, , PUDUCHERRY

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वकी, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.681/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18

Chandrapraba Income Tax Officer, No.55, Bhadar Sahib Street, Vs. Ward-1, Puducherry- 605001 Puducherry. [PAN-BDOPC3880N) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal arises from order vide DIN / order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059986294(1) dated 22.01.2024 of the CIT(Appeal)/NFAC whereby the appeal of the assesse was dismissed on account of non-prosecution of appeal by the assesse.

ITA No.681/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:

2.0 At the outset the Ld.AR argued that there existed genuine and sufficient grounds with the assesse which contributed to not making proper representation and submission before the Ld.CIT(A). It was also submitted that the matter be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and that the assesse assures that full compliance shall be made during appellate proceedings.

3.0 The Ld. DR contested the submissions of the assessee arguing that the assesse did not have a justifiable reason for non-compliance and accordingly relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

4.0 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Chandrapraba is an individual and filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 on 17/07/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,08,070, The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verity large value of cash deposit during demonetization period' and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued time to time calling for various information, In response to the said notices, the assessee submitted a letter dated 14/12/2019 stating that the bank account bearing A/c No 0182053000013426 maintained with South Indian Bank

ITA No.681/Chny/2024 :- 3 -:

in which the cash was deposited was in the name of her husband Shri V Sridharane. Further the AO found that the bank A/c was a joint A/c of the appellant with her husband. Information u/s 133(6) was sought from South Indian Bank Ltd, Pondicherry and it was noticed that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,34,500- in the bank account on various dates and regarding the source of the SBNs, the assessee submitted that they had received the demonetized currency towards sales. The explanation of the assessee regarding the cash deposits was found unsatisfactory to the assessee and hence the same is treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.25,34,500/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before Ld.CIT(A).

5.0 The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order mentioned Supra holding that the assesse did not avail the opportunities given by him and proceeded to dismiss the appeal by relying upon judicial pronouncement on the matter.

ITA No.681/Chny/2024 :- 4 -:

6.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of facts of the case and material available on records. On perusal of the order it is seen that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non- compliance to his notices and proceeded to confirm the additions made by the AO, the latter order also done ex-parte. The appellant has unequivocally assured that it shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The matter is restored to file of the AO because he is the first authority who has the right to adjudicate on return of income and in this case the said right could not be exercised because of non-compliance by the tax payer. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 the matter is restored to the file of the AO for assessment de novo. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO.

ITA No.681/Chny/2024 :- 5 -:

7.0 In the result the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 31st May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) Judicial Member Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनांक/Dated: 31st May, 2024. KB/- आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलधर्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Coimbatore / Salem 4. नवभधगीय प्रनिनिनर्/DR 5. गधर्ा फधईल/GF