VENKAT RAO PALETI,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2., NIZAMABAD

The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under :

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a non-filer of income tax return for the AY 2017- 18. Subsequently notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was issued by the learned assessing officer(‘ld.AO’) requiring the assessee to file return of his income. However, the assessee did not file the return of his income. Further some more notices were also issued to the assessee, but the assessee did not respond to all such notices. Finally, the ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act, treating the total deposits in his bank accounts as unexplained, hence making the addition u/s. 69A of the Act to the tune of Rs. 69,22,911/-.The relevant part of the order of the ld.AO is reproduced as under :

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings the assessee produced documentary evidences qua additions of Rs.24,74,960/- only and did not produce any documentary evidences qua additions of Rs.44,42,215/-. Consequently the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition upto an amount of Rs.24,74,960/- and confirmed the additions of Rs. 44,22,215/-. The relevant part of the order of the ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as under :

Feeling aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.

6. The learned AR submitted that the assessee was a government teacher and retired during the financial year 2016-17 and he did not file return of income for the financial year 2016-17 relevant to A.Y 2017-18. After retirement, the assessee shifted to another place and could not comply with various notices issued for the A.Y 2017-18 as he could not receive the same. The learned AR further submitted that the authorities erred in declining sufficient opportunity to the assessee in proving his deposits in the banks. The learned AR also submitted that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be disposed of without any documentary evidence being produced and it is only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not produce the documents. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct the proceedings diligently and get the matter disposed of on merits.

Per contra, learned DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. He opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the orders of the authorities that the assessee failed to explain the sources for credit in his bank account, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. It is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now that the assessee is ready to produce all such documentary evidence in support of his contentions and get the matter disposed of on merits. The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given to the assessee and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.