RAMASAMY KANDASAMY,SALEM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(6), SALEM
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B(SMC
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
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 28.11.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that, as per information available with the Department, the assessee has made cash
:-2-: ITA. No: 1578/Chny/2023 deposits into bank account during demonetization period. The assessee has not filed any return of income for the impugned assessment year. Since, the assessee has not filed any return of income, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued calling for return of income. The assessee neither filed his return of income nor submitted any details, which is evident from the assessment order, where the Assessing Officer has issued various notices, but no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and made additions of Rs. 6,34,737/- towards estimated profit @ 8% on sale turnover of Rs. 79,34,219/- as per section 44AD of the Act. The Assessing Officer had also made additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards cash deposits in specified bank notes u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but neither appeared nor filed any details, even though the case was posted for hearing on four occasions. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) disposed off appeal filed by the assessee on the basis of material available on record and sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer
:-3-: ITA. No: 1578/Chny/2023 towards cash deposits to bank account and estimation of net profit on gross receipts. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) are erred in estimating net profit on total credits in bank account and further making additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, even though the assessee has filed all details to prove that gross receipts does not exceed Rs. 80,34,219/-. Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportunity of hearing to explain his case.
The ld. DR, on the other hand fairly agreed that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain his case.
We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed any details, which is evident from best judgment assessment passed by the Assessing Officer.
:-4-: ITA. No: 1578/Chny/2023 Further, the assessee did not even appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and filed any details. From the above, it is very clear that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting his case before the tax authorities and this conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. At the same time, the Assessing Officer has passed best judgment assessment and estimated 8% profit on gross receipts of Rs. 79,34,219/-. In addition, the Assessing Officer had also made addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that, total receipts considered by the Assessing Officer is over and above total credits found in bank account. We find that as per the Assessing Officer himself, the total credits in bank account is Rs. 80,34,219/-. As against this, the Assessing Officer has considered total credits of Rs. 89,34,219/-. From the above, it is very clear that the best judgment assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and erroneous. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the issue needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case. Thus, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue denovo in accordance
:-5-: ITA. No: 1578/Chny/2023 with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer and explain his case without seeking any adjournment.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 27th February, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (मंजूनाथा. जी) (MANJUNATHA. G) लेखासद�य/Accountant Member
चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 27th February, 2024 JPV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1.अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु�/CIT 4.. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
