Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B(SMC
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
PER MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.07.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 72 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering
:-2-: ITA. No: 1425/Chny/2023 the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is an individual and has filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 02.08.2017, admitting the total income of Rs. 6,36,450/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 25,62,500/- into bank accounts with Karur Vysya Bank, Alandur Branch and Indian Overseas Bank, Alandur Branch in specified bank notes during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer, called upon the assessee to file necessary proofs to explain source for cash deposits. Since, the appellant could not file any details, the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 25,62,500/- towards cash deposits during demonetization period as unexplained investment u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but neither appeared nor filed any details, even
:-3-: ITA. No: 1425/Chny/2023 though the appeal was fixed for hearing on four dates. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) disposed off appeal by the assessee exparte and upheld additions made towards cash deposits u/s. 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, submitted that the assessee did not get proper opportunity of hearing before the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) to explain his case. Therefore, the issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ld. DR, Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT, on the other hand submitted that the appellant is non-corporative at all stages of proceedings, which is evident from assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A). No doubt, the assessee did not get opportunity to explain his case, but no fault can be find out from the authorities, because the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, if at all the issue needs to be set aside, subject to imposing of cost appeal may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
:-4-: ITA. No: 1425/Chny/2023 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee is non-cooperative at all stages of proceedings, which is evident from exparte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and exparte appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Further, the appellant could not explain proper reasons for non-appearance before the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). From the above, it is undoubtedly clear that, assessee is very casual in his approach before the authorities and said approach cannot be appreciated. Further, although the ld. CIT(A) has disposed off appeal filed by the assessee, but such appeal has been dismissed on technical grounds, without considering the issue on merits. It is a well settled principle of law by the decisions of various courts that, even in a case of appeal being disposed off for non-prosecution of the appellant, the said appeal should be disposed off on merits, on the basis of material available on record. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed appeal filed by the assessee without considering the issue on merits, in our considered view the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing before the Assessing Officer. But, the assessee should get another opportunity subject to payment of nominal cost for non-serious in prosecuting its case before the authorities. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportunity of hearing to the :-5-: ITA. No: 1425/Chny/2023 assessee to substantiate its case with necessary evidences. The assessee is directed to pay nominal cost of Rs. 10,000/- to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce necessary proof of payment to the Registry within 15 days from the date of this order.