VELLINGIRI LAKSHMANAN,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, COIMBATORE

The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposited during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO called upon the assessee 2 to furnish necessary evidences to prove source for cash deposits. The assessee neither furnished any evidences nor justified source of cash deposits. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.37,53,374/- u/s.69A of the Act, as unexplained money.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details which is evident from order of the CIT(A), where the CIT(A) has provided three dates of hearing for which no compliance from the assessee.

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) and file necessary details, because hearing notice sent by the CIT(A) was communicated to the Authorized Representative and same has gone unnoticed by the assessee. Therefore, the learned counsel requested to give one more opportunity of hearing to 3 the assessee by remitting the matter back to the file of the CIT(A).

The learned DR Shri P.Sajit Kumar, present for the Revenue supporting order of the CIT(A) submitted that the assessee is non-cooperative to the proceedings, which is evident from assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, where the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. The said lapse is still continued, even before the Ld.CIT(A), which is evident from the order of the Ld.CIT(A), where the CIT(A) has provided number of opportunity of hearing, but no response. Therefore, there is no reason to give another opportunity to the assessee to go back to the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is non-co-operative to the proceedings, which is evident from the fact that even before the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not appear and file necessary details to justify cash deposits into the bank account. The said lapse is still continued even before the Ld.CIT(A), where it is evident that 4 although, the CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the assessee could not avail opportunity given by the CIT(A) and file necessary details to substantiate his case. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, when the appellant is not serious in prosecuting the appeal, the appellate authorities have left with no choice, but to dispose off the appeal, but such appeal should be disposed on merits on the basis of materials available on record. In the present case, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution without discussing the issues on merits. Therefore, in our considered view, one more opportunity of hearing should be given to the assessee to explain his case before the CIT(A).