MANCHUKONDA RAVI KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061285190(1) dated 21.02.2024, arising

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.1,14,23,380/- in his savings bank account No.126801500934 maintained with ICICI bank and no return of income was filed for the year under consideration. The AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. Later on notice u/s 142(1) was issued requesting the assessee to file return of income along with the information. The AO observed that the assessee has simply replied that he has done trading in gold biscuit and the cash was deposited out of the sale of gold, but no documentary evidence in the shape of purchase bill, sale bill, confirmation from the sale parties etc. has been placed on record despite sufficient number of opportunities provided. Hence, the AO completed the assessment, treating the cash deposits as unexplained cash credits u/s 69A of the Act to be taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act on 21.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,14,23,380/-.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, by raising 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.

The only contention of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,14,23,380/- made by the AO and passing the order ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice to substantiate his case with Manchukonda Ravi Kumar, Visakhapatnam cogent material evidences, otherwise, the assessee would suffer irreparable financial loss.

Per contra, the Ld.DR argued that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities before the revenue authorities, but the assessee did not try to controvert the findings of the AO by adducing supporting details / evidences. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,14,23,380/-. On appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. The only contention of the assessee is that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim in support of the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence pleaded for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case with evidences. In view of the foregoing 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 Manchukonda Ravi Kumar, Visakhapatnam 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 department during the proceedings.

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