SAILAJA POTU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.03.2024 for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds :

2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under :

“i. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, for alleged non-compliance to hearing notices, without deciding the appeal on the merits as per section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for this reason also the order of the Hon. CIT(A) is bad-in-law and required to be set aside. ii. That the order is bad in law as well as on facts as the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 94,99,000/- made by AO on account of Cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization period without verification of whether deposited cash is specified notes or not. iii. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.94,99,000/- made by Ld. AO under section 69A as unexplained money without considering the objections raised by the appellant during assessment proceedings as the cash sales made by appellant already considered as Sales in books of accounts. iv. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 94,99,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A, without considering the trend of cash sales and cash deposits during the previous year and previous month even though submitted by the appellant during assessment proceedings. v. Learned AO has grossly erred in passing Assessment Order u/s 143(3) without issuing Show Cause Notice, hence no sufficient opportunity provided by the AO against the principles of Natural Justice. vi. The learned Assessing officer erred in making an addition u/s 69A without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 69A are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant as the cash sales were recorded in books of accounts. vii. The Learned Assessing Officer made addition, without bringing any material on record to believe the evidences and explanation given by the appellant.”

3.1. Further, on perusal of the statements furnished by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had submitted the source for cash deposits as cash sales only. The difference of Rs. 1,34,82,000/- - Rs. 39,83,000/-(maximum allowable as per the details), which comes out to Rs. 94,99,000/- was in question as to why the above amount was received in cash out of sale and deposited in the bank, when the denominations were no more valid tenders, for which the assessee did not give her explanation. Taking this into consideration and also the fact that the assessee did not admit the said cash deposits in the return of income, the authenticity of the “source” cannot be ascertained. Thus, the source for cash deposits of Rs. 94,99,000/- had remained unexplained and hence, the same was added back to the income returned u/s. 69A of the Act and was taxed according to the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 31.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act.

8 We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record and also the order passed by the lower authorities. On perusal of the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A), we found that ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. From para 4 of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is clear that ld.CIT(A) was forced to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record, as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. In view of the above reasons, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if the matter is remanded back to the file of ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minster Relief Fund within one month or from the date of receipt of this order or whichever is earlier.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th August, 2024.