GOBINDA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(2),KOLKATA, GOVERNMENT PLACE

Gobinda Ghosh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(2), 22/H/113, Raja Manindra Kolkata. Road, Paikpara, Kolkata- 700037. (PAN:ASGPG6168B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: None appeared for the Appellant Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 08.05.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 28.05.2024 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

by the assessee is that he did not receive any notice from the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, Gobinda Ghosh, AY: 2017-18 he could not make any written submission before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the matter has not been heard on merits.

3. We, after hearing the Ld. DR and going through the grounds of appeal and records noticed that the assessee is an individual and his case was selected for scrutiny on account of the information about cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- during de-monetization period. Ld. AO called for the information from the Belgachia Road Post Office over the cash deposit and necessary information was received. Assessee failed to appear. Even Inspector was deputed to serve the notice but finally it was served through affixture. Ld. AO concluded the assessment making various additions totalling to Rs.43,97,693/- which, inter alia, included addition for unexplained cash deposit during de- monetization period. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to appear, as a result, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. Now, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds but in ground no. 7, the assessee has stated that it did not receive any notice from Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, could not file any written submission and the matter was not heard on merits.

4. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of lower authorities.

5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. We notice that the assessee appealed against the ex part order u/s. 144 of the Act dated 24.09.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A). In the impugned order, Ld. CIT(A) stated that various dates of hearing were issued asking the assessee to furnish written submission but there was no response. Ld. CIT(A) based on the available records completed the proceedings. We note that the assessee did not get any opportunity to furnish the details before the lower authorities.

Gobinda Ghosh, AY: 2017-18 Though the Ld. AO has taken necessary measures to contact the assessee but so far as the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned only notices were sent on the e-mail. The system of faceless appellate proceedings is new and there are various assessees who are not well conversed with this new technological developments. Also, the assessee is connected with the department through its legal representative and sometimes e- mail ID of the office of the authorized representative are mentioned and the notice of hearing is not communicated to the assessee for certain unavoidable reasons. However, assessee has a right to get proper opportunity of hearing and also to file written submission in support of his grounds so that correct income should be assessed. We thus, in the interest of natural justice and fair play remit all the issues raised by assessee on merits to Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, who shall provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to furnish correct e-mail address to the appellate authority and also update the correct e-mail address on the PAN data base and should not take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.