VENKATACHALAPTHI VARAGANTI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18. Statutory notices u/s 142(1)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 9.3.2018 calling for return of income. As per the information available with the Department, the assessee made cash deposits of Page 1 of 4 Rs.10,31,000/- during the demonetization period during the year relevant for the A.Y 2017-18. In response to the notices, the assessee vide his letter dated 20.09.2019 submitted that he has income less than basic exemption limit for the financial year 2016-17 and hence he has not filed return of income. The assessee also submitted that the source of cash deposited are out of cash sales and previous savings. The Assessing Officer not satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee, again wanted the assessee to furnish the proof of the claim of amount of Rs.5,30,000/- deposited by his late father Sri Pandurangam Varaganti and the nature of business made with M/s. Shiv Sai Marketing and details of incomes earned by doing such business. Since the assessee did not furnish any details regarding the total deposits in his three bank accounts during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.10,31,000/-and to substantiate his claim with corroborative evidences, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.12,72,730/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A) also, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) nor appeared before him. Thus, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) did not grant sufficient opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim and prayed for reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices issued by the Department despite several opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A). Hence, the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed.

I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that the assessee did not appear nor furnished the requisite details before the lower authorities despite opportunities given to the assessee. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee would be in a position to furnish necessary details with documentary evidence before the learned CIT (A). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of the learned CIT (A) to give reasonable

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.