DEVAKI TRADERS,PUDUCHERRY vs. AO, CHE-W(171)(1), CHENNAI

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 27.10.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16.

:-2-: ITA. No: 1300/Chny/2023 steel and cement. The appellant has not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, the assessment has been re-opened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 30.02.2022 was issued and served on the assessee. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences in respect of cash deposits into bank account and also interest income received from bank. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 10.11.2022 submitted that, source for cash deposits is out of cash receipts generated from retail sales. The assessee has also explained as to why it could not file return of income under provisions of section 139 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of relevant facts completed assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and determined total income of Rs. 3,25,39,440/-, by making various additions including additions towards cash deposits into bank account u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but neither appeared nor filed any details, even though the case was posted for hearing on three

:-3-: ITA. No: 1300/Chny/2023 occasions. However, on third occasion filed a petition seeking adjournment of hearing for 15 days. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the adjournment request filed by the assessee and also taken note of relevant facts dismissed appeal filed by the assessee, without considering adjournment petition and upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits into bank account u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

:-4-: ITA. No: 1300/Chny/2023 to notices given by the appellate authority and file necessary details. In case the appellant does not comply with the notices, then the appellate authority has to dispose off the appeal on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, when appellant is not complying with the notices, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by the assessee and thus, there is no reason to give another opportunity to the assessee.

:-5-: ITA. No: 1300/Chny/2023 sufficient opportunity to the assessee, in our considered view, the matter needs to go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. But, the assessee will get another opportunity before the first appellate authority, subject to payment of nominal cost of Rs. 10,000/- for failure to appear before the ld. CIT(A), when the appeal was called for hearing. Thus, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), subject to the condition that the assessee should pay Rs. 10,000/- cost to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.