Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & 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 15.11.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 19.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.
:-2-: ITA. No: 1534/Chny/2023 15,69,510/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify large cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences to prove source for cash deposits into bank account. In response, the assessee submitted that, source for cash deposit is out of sale proceeds of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not explain source for cash deposits during demonetization period and thus, made additions of Rs. 32,06,500/- u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Assessing Officer, had also made additions of Rs. 10,32,691/-, being 30% of expenditure debited under the head ‘interest for non-deduction of TDS’ under respective provisions of the Act.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details, which is evident from Para 2 of Page 3 of ld. CIT(A) order, where the ld. CIT(A) has provided five dates of hearing, but no
:-3-: ITA. No: 1534/Chny/2023 compliance from the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) disposed off appeal filed by the assessee exparte and upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits u/s. 68 of the Act and disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of tax at source under Chapter XVIIB of the Act. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by the assessee exparte, without considering adjournment petition filed by the assessee to seek some time to file necessary details to justify the case. Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case.
The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee could not avail sufficient opportunities provided by the first appellate authority to explain its case. Therefore, there is no reason to set aside the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that, in case the assessee should get one more opportunity of
:-4-: ITA. No: 1534/Chny/2023 hearing, then subject to payment of nominal cost the matter may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
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
:-5-: ITA. No: 1534/Chny/2023 considered view the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). 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 CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case with necessary evidences. The assessee is directed to pay nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- 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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर �सह ) (मंजूनाथा. जी) (MANJUNATHA. G) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा�य� /Vice President लेखासद�य/Accountant Member चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 21st 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