RAPARTHY VENUGOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(4), HYDERABAD

Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 11.10.2018 admitting an income of Rs.4,83,540/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS “Large Cash Deposits during demonetization period and Business Return filed for the first time”. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued and served on the assessee to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite details regarding the deposit of Rs.15,96,398/-made during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, on verification of the information noticed that the assessee has purchased house property on 10.11.2016 along with 2 others for a consideration of Rs.1,25,65,000/-. Though the assessee has explained that he has invested his share of investment of Rs.8,04,000/- out of his earlier savings, but no corroborative evidence was filed in support of his explanation. Moreover, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in his bank account on 27.07.2016. Rejecting all the explanations offered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) and made addition of Rs.37,87,540/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) separately.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) NFAC who dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to submit any submission or evidence during the appellate proceedings in support of grounds of appeal as well as the statement of facts and remained non- complaint and non-responsive during the assessement proceedings.

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

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notices sent from the IT Portal were sent to wrong email, therefore, there was noncompliance from the side of the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee further prayed, if given an opportunity, the assessee would be in a position to furnish all the requisite details with evidence before the learned CIT (A) NFAC.

The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that since the notices sent from the IT Portal were sent to wrong email, therefore, there was noncompliance from the side of the assessee. 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) NFAC with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite details with evidence. The assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite details on the appointed date of hearing before the learned CIT (A) NFAC without seeking any adjournment under any pretext.