VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

We have heard the Ld.AR gone through the condonation petition and medical certificate filed by the assessee. It is evident from the Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram records that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 11.07.2023 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal on or before 10.09.2023, but the assessee could file appeal only on 06.11.2023 with the delay of 58 days. We find that there is reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. We, therefore, condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for hearing.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed return of income for A.Y.2015-16. It was noticed by the department that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.80,45,200/- in his bank account No.048301500633 maintained with ICICI bank during the F.Y.2014-15. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 06.01.2021 Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for details, documents and evidences in support of income earned during the year, but the assessee has not submitted any details and supporting evidences as called for. Accordingly, the assessing officer(AO) treated the amount of Rs.80,45,200/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given several opportunities, but no details, documents or submissions have been provided to arrive at any conclusion by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 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. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte before the Ld.CIT(A) due to non prosecution of the appeal by the assessee with cogent material evidences in support of the grounds of appeal raised. But, the contention of the Ld.AR is that he was not given sufficient opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, pleaded for another opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case, keeping in view the principles of natural justice. It is observed from the records that the assessee was given several opportunities, but the assessee failed to respond to the notices for prosecution of his appeal with evidences and hence, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram Ld.CIT(A). When the assessee files appeal before the appeal authorities, the onus is on the assessee to adhere to the notices and appear before the authorities for prosecution of his case and controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with supporting material evidences. However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to afford the assessee, another opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and furnish relevant material evidences to substantiate his case. Accordingly, the grounds filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

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