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

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 26.10.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.

:-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

:-3-: ITA. No: 1537/Chny/2023 Multiplan India Pvt Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del). Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

:-4-: ITA. No: 1537/Chny/2023 5. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The ld. CIT(A) disposed off appeal filed by the assessee exparte, without considering adjournment letter filed by the assessee to comply with notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) to justify its case, contrary to settled principle of law. Further, when the appellant seeks adjournment with a valid reason, it is the duty of the appellate authority to provide adjournment to the appellant to submit necessary details. Further, although the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed appeal filed by the assessee, but such appeal has been dismissed for non- appearance without discussing the issues on merits. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has not provided 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. 5,000/- 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. 5,000/- cost to State Legal

:-5-: ITA. No: 1537/Chny/2023 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.