MANICKAM JEWELLERY ,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NC WARD 22(3), TAMBARAM

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 26.10.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of trading in jewellery. The assessee has filed its return of income for the :-2-: ITA. No: 1537/Chny/2023 assessment year 2017-18 on 17.03.2018, admitting total income of Rs. 3,02,540/-. 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. 35,38,500/- into Axis Bank account during demonetization period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary details. The assessee has not filed any details and also not furnished explanation for source for cash deposits into bank account during demonetization period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 35,38,500/- u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee neither furnished any details nor explained source for cash deposits, which is evident from Para 5.2 of ld. CIT(A) order, where the ld. CIT(A) has posted the appeal for hearing on three dates. But, in all three occasions the assessee has sought adjournment to file details. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution, in light of decision of ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT vs

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appeal filed by the assessee without considering adjournment petition filed by the assessee, seeking time to file necessary details, in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that when the appellant is not serious in prosecuting their appeal, the appellate authorities have left with no choice but to dispose off appeal filed by the assessee. In the present case, since the appellant is not responding to notice issued by ld. CIT(A), the appellate authorities has rightly dismissed appeal filed by the assessee and their order should be upheld.