Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE
अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 18.04.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2024 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/250/2023-24/1057406381(1) dated 26.10.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 18.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. Venkata Narayana Peetha, Guntur
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and e- filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 21.10.2017, declaring the total income of Rs.3,08,400/- under the head “Other Sources”. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for examination of cash deposits during demonetization period. After issuing statutory notice, the assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs.12,51,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 69A of the IT 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 due to non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, despite giving multiple opportunities.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, filed a petition and pleaded to substitute the original grounds raised
with the revised grounds as follows :
1. 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.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant.
3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Venkata Narayana Peetha, Guntur Rs.12,51,000 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period.
4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.
5. At the outset, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee is a farmer and doing cultivation for 15 years and the source for cash deposits was from earlier savings made out of agricultural income earned from 8 acres of land taken on lease for the last 15 years and earning commission as real estate agent. The assessee has not maintained any books of accounts for the income and expenditure earned from agricultural activities other than the bank account. The Ld.AR further submitted that the amount given to the assessee by one Mr.Jasti Veeranjaneyulu was a loan returned by him during demonetisation period, which was given to him earlier. The Ld.AR further submitted that the revenue authorities are not justified in making and confirming the addition as the income from agricultural activities is exempt from tax. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has source for deposing cash during the demonetization period, The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has sources for the cash deposits made and pleaded that the assessee may be provided an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate it’s claim with material evidences, in the interest of justice.
Venkata Narayana Peetha, Guntur
Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities to prosecute it’s case, but the assessee never complied with the notices issued and served. Hence, the revenue authorities are justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution. The Ld.DR, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the assessment was completed by the AO, making an addition of Rs.12,51,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed a paper book and contented that the sources for the cash deposits was from the agricultural income derived for the last 15 years and the commission received as real estate agent, besides agricultural income. The assessee pleaded for one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate it’s case with material evidences. 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) and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass order after verification. The Venkata Narayana Peetha, Guntur assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the revenue authorities and cooperate with the department during the proceedings.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th April, 2024. (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 19.04.2024 L.Rama, SPS