ANIRUDDHA KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 62(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.06.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and earning income abroad during the relevant period. The Assessing Officer obtained information that gross total income of the assessee during the assessment year amounting to Rs.59,49,229/- was comprised of proceed from EPF maturity of Rs.2,56,041/-, LIC maturity of Rs.26,92,564/-, interest income of Rs.39/-, payment made to non- residents of Rs.331/-. The assessee also made investment of Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.16,00,000/- into two bank term deposits claimed to be a genuine source of the income. A notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the above ex parte order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal was not effectively perused due to negligence of the then authorized representative of the assessee. Ultimately, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the assessee is a permanent resident of Canada and he has acquired Canadian citizenship. He further stated that the assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings conducted by the Income Tax Department and came to know about the ex parte order passed by the Assessing Officer only when he visited India in the month of November 2022. He further stated that even before the ld. CIT(A), the then authorized representative of the assessee did not able to handle the matter properly and as a result, the impugned ex parte order was passed against the assessee. He, therefore, prayed before the Bench that another opportunity may be given to the assessee to justify his income and present the relevant evidences in order to substantiate his claim.

On the other hand, the ld. DR stated that adequate opportunities were indeed provided to the assessee to respond to the notices and un- responsive behaviour due to the negligence of the assessee in pursuing the matter, cannot be the ground for setting aside the order.

In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.