MANI KISHORE REDDY BURGAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, it is seen that, there is a delay of 18 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation petition and after hearing the learned DR, the delay of 18 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under :

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, House property and interest during the assessment year 2021-22, filed his returns of income on 23/03/2022 declaring total income of Rs.14,93,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS on the issue “Large Cash deposits in Bank and Purchase of property”. The assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (“learned assessing officer”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 22/12/2022 making an addition of Rs.1,30,30,000/-.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding as under :

Feeling aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us, contending that the authorities erred in declining sufficient opportunity to the assessee in proving the cash deposited in the bank and investment made in flat at Vishakhapatnam. It is further contended that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order without providing proper opportunity. The learned AR further 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 produce the details with regards to the deposit of cash in the bank and investment made in flat at Vishakhapatnam, 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 subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund which shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.

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