Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :
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/250/2023-24/1062108699(1) dated 06.03.2024 arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 13.12.2018.
Srinivasa Rao Sadam, Vijayawada
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income on 27.11.2017 admitting income of Rs.3,57,220/-. Assessment in the case of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO), assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,29,69,920/- by making addition of cash deposits of Rs.1,26,12,700/- as unexplained money.
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.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act vide orders dt.13.12.2018 and subsequently upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC (in short “CIT(A)”) vide orders dt.06.03.2024, are contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law.
2. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the case of the assessee for non- appearance, thereby failing to dispose of the case of merits. This action is in contravention of the provisions of sec.250(4) of the IT Act, which mandates that the appellate authority to dispose of the case on merits. 3. Furthermore, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to afford the appellant the opportunity to explain the sources for the cash deposits made in the bank account, thus depriving the appellant of the principles of natural justice. The appellant asserts that the cash deposits were Srinivasa Rao Sadam, Vijayawada sourced from legitimate income, including income from contract works, agricultural income and other lawful sources.
The impugned order passed u/s 250 of the IT Act is unsustainable both in law and facts. The appellant contends that the order lacks proper consideration of the facts presented and the applicable legal provisions.
In light of the aforementioned grounds, the appellant prays that the impugned order passed u/s 250 of the IT Act be dismissed. The appellant reserves the right to present further arguments and evidence during the hearing of the appeal.
5. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the cash deposits made by the assessee were sourced from legitimate income. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was not afforded opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to explain the sources for the cash deposits made. The Ld.AR further submitted that the addition made by the AO was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) against the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim in the interest of justice.
Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that as evident from the orders of the revenue authorities, the assessee was given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee did not avail the same to rebut 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
Srinivasa Rao Sadam, Vijayawada by the AO. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
We 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 r.w.s. 147 of the Act assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,29,69,920/- which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to explain the sources for the cash deposits made 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, we are 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.
Srinivasa Rao Sadam, Vijayawada
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th June,2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरुआर.एलरेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBERन्याधयकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 20.06.2024 L.Rama SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Shri Srinivas Rao Sadam, 78-5-39, Kunda Vari Kandrikapadamara Bazar, ZP High School Road, Vijayawada 2.रधजस्व/The Revenue –The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Vijayawada 4.नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकरअपीलीयअनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam