DUDDU PRASAD,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, VIZIANAGARAM

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063526336(1) dated 28.03.2024 arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 07.12.2019. Duddu Prasad, Vizianagaram

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file return of income for the A.Y.2017-18. On the basis of AIR information, it was found that the assessee has deposited substantial cash deposits during the period of demonetization and accordingly the assessee was asked to file the return of income by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notice. Assessment was completed and an assessment order u/s 144 of the Act dated 07.12.2019 was passed, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.12,66,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal :

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities. Hence, prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee did not avail the same to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with cogent material evidences. The Ld.DR therefore submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition made by the AO. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is evident that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 144 of the Act and the addition of Rs.12,66,000/- made by Duddu Prasad, Vizianagaram the AO was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his claim with evidences and prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.