CHINNASAMY ARASU,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), SALEM

PER MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

:-2-: ITA. No: 1577/Chny/2023 19,41,911/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that total transactions including cash and other credits in the bank account of appellant maintained with Indian Bank was at Rs. 6,80,32,368/-. The Assessing Officer, further noticed that out of total transactions, cash deposits during demonetization period was at Rs. 34,12,000/-. The assessee was called upon to explain the details of transactions in bank account and also source for cash deposits during demonetization period. Since, the appellant has not filed any details, the Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs. 34,12,000/- u/. 69 r.w.s. 115BBA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and also estimated 8% profit on remaining cash deposits and made addition of Rs. 35,00,679/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but neither appeared nor filed any details, which is evident from Para 5.1 of ld. CIT(A) order, where the first appellate authority has posted the case for hearing on four dates, But no response from the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by the assessee exparte for non-prosecution and upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits during

:-3-: ITA. No: 1577/Chny/2023 demonetization period and also estimation of profit on total credit in bank account. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

:-4-: ITA. No: 1577/Chny/2023 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 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 :-5-: ITA. No: 1577/Chny/2023 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.