NAGARAMA MANOHAR TENNETI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

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/250/2023-24/1058488059(1) dated 05.12.2023 arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 18.12.2019. Nagarama Manohar, Vijayawada

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.07.2017, admitting total income of Rs.12,81,460/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through “CASS” to verify “Cash deposit during demonetisation period”. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, calling for information. After verifying the information, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment and made an addition of Rs.14,07,500/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.26,88,960/- as the assessee could not properly explain the cash deposits made during the demonetization period with evidences.

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 grounds with regard to addition made u/s 69A of the Act.

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 Nagarama Manohar, Vijayawada addition made by the AO. The Ld.AR further submitted that the non- compliance to the notices issued by the revenue authorities was due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient time and opportunity to substantiate his claim with evidences and 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 143(3) of the Act and addition of Rs.14,07,500/- made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient time to substantiate his claim with evidences and prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Nagarama Manohar, Vijayawada 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.