Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 29/03/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Sri Mahalakshmi Enterprises (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 07/11/2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 10,28,420/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, for the cash deposits of Rs. 35,51,000/- made by the assessee during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 35,51,000/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 29/12/2019. Aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A).
During the course of appellate proceedings, learned CIT(A) issued three notices dated 29/12/2020, 22/09/2021 and 23/03/2024 under section 250 of the Act to the assessee, through ITBA portal. But the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee make any written submissions against such an addition of Rs. 35,51,000/-. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, sustaining the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer. Hence, this appeal by the assessee.
Learned AR submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous since the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sources for the cash deposits are business receipts and the same are recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. It was also submitted by the learned AR that the learned CIT(A) disposed-of the appeal, but the assessee has not been aware of the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). As could be seen from the impugned order, the notices of hearing were not served on the assessee directly, but those were uploaded to ITBA portal.
According to the learned AR, the assessee never knew the issuance of the notices, since the Partner of the assessee firm is not aware as to how to navigate the ITBA portal, but only depending upon ITP. He further submitted that the assessee did not receive any e-mail from NFAC regarding the posting of the case for hearing, but came to know about the disposal of the appeal when he approached the qualified tax professional, who verified the ITBA portal. Learned AR, therefore, submits that because of this ignorance of technology on the part of the assessee, the assessee could not participate in the first appellate proceedings.
Finally, learned AR submitted that if for any reason the Bench thinks it proper that without verification of facts, it is not possible to grant any relief to the assessee, the issue may be restored to the file of learned Assessing Officer so that the assessee would file all the relevant documents before the learned Assessing Officer.
Learned DR submits that ITBA portal is made for the purpose of integrating the process under the Act and it is for the assessee to verify the date of hearing from the same.
Having considered the submissions made by either side carefully, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order and to restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering the details now submitted by the assessee in respect of the cash deposits made by the assessee. This is the last opportunity to the assessee and assessee is directed to co-operate with the learned Assessing Officer by producing all the relevant documents/material to get the matter disposed of on merits. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.