TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN,SODEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-50(5), KOLKATA

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Barman furnished e-return of income for Assessment Year 2017 return of income for Assessment Year 2017 return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31/10/2017 declaring income of Rs. 11,09,710/ 31/10/2017 declaring income of Rs. 11,09,710/-. Case selected for . Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Though the notices were sent by e 142(1) of the Act. Though the notices were sent by e-mail and also via mail and also via speed-post on 23/12/2019, none appear post on 23/12/2019, none appeared. The ld. Assessing Officer . The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.53,11,5 observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.53,11,5 observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.53,11,500/- during demonetisation period. However, without giving any second etisation period. However, without giving any second etisation period. However, without giving any second opportunity, the ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment on opportunity, the ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment on opportunity, the ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment on 27/12/2019 itself i.e., within four days of issuing the showcause 27/12/2019 itself i.e., within four days of issuing the showcause 27/12/2019 itself i.e., within four days of issuing the showcause letter and the total amount of cash deposit during demonetisation letter and the total amount of cash deposit during demonetisation letter and the total amount of cash deposit during demonetisation period at Rs.53,11,500/ at Rs.53,11,500/- added in the hands of the assessee in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money of the Act as unexplained money and assessed income at and assessed income at Rs.64,21,210/-. Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. Assessing . Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. Assessing . Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). There was a Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). There was a Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 32 days in filing of the appeal but the same was condoned of 32 days in filing of the appeal but the same was condoned of 32 days in filing of the appeal but the same was condoned but thereafter, assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing but thereafter, assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing but thereafter, assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing fixed by the ld. CIT(A). Further, the ld. CIT(A) without dealing with the A). Further, the ld. CIT(A) without dealing with the A). Further, the ld. CIT(A) without dealing with the merits of the case followed the decision of the Co merits of the case followed the decision of the Co- -ordinate Bench Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Barman activity has not started specifically during the activity has not started specifically during the demonetisation period demonetisation period but the same is being consistently carried out for the past many the same is being consistently carried out for the past many the same is being consistently carried out for the past many years. Had these details been furnished before the lower authorities, years. Had these details been furnished before the lower authorities, years. Had these details been furnished before the lower authorities, the assessee would have been able to satisfy the lower authorities the assessee would have been able to satisfy the lower authorities the assessee would have been able to satisfy the lower authorities about the source of alleged cas the source of alleged cash deposit.

We, therefore, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the We, therefore, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the We, therefore, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties and considering the fact that proper opportunity of hearing and considering the fact that proper opportunity of hearing and considering the fact that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted by ld. Assessing Officer, was not granted by ld. Assessing Officer, admit the additional admit the additional evidence filed before us and restore the issues raised on merits to the evidence filed before us and restore the issues raised on merits to the evidence filed before us and restore the issues raised on merits to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for file of the ld. Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and adjudication and carry out the assessment proceeding after taking into consideration the details the assessment proceeding after taking into consideration the details the assessment proceeding after taking into consideration the details filed by the assess filed by the assessee in the paper book filed before us and after ee in the paper book filed before us and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee shall decide in giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee shall decide in giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee shall decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that, the assessee should accordance with law. Needless to mention that, the assessee should accordance with law. Needless to mention that, the assessee should remain compliant to the notice of hearing and shall not take remain compliant to the notice of hearing and shall not take remain compliant to the notice of hearing and shall not take adjournment and should appear on the very first date of hearing and should appear on the very first date of hearing and should appear on the very first date of hearing unless otherwise for a unless otherwise for a bonafide cause and furnish the details and furnish the details to explain the source of alleged cash explain the source of alleged cash.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the C Order pronounced in the Court on 8th July, 2024 at Kolkata. at Kolkata. (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 08/07/2024 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Barman

""यथ" / The Respondent / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) )/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध ,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/Guard file.