Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 18/01/2024 passed by the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur, (“Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)”), in the case of Anusha Pagadala (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having rental income. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04/08/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,04,636/- as income from house property. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify large value of cash deposits during demonetization period and verification of sources of property purchased. During the course of assessment proceedings, on the ground of the part/insufficient compliance and invalid explanation from the assessee regarding nature and cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 9 lakhs with supporting documents, learned Assessing Officer, by order dated 05/12/2019, finalised the assessment, treating the total amount of Rs. 9 lakhs as ‘un-explained money’ under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the year under consideration and added the same to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Order of the learned Addl./JCIT(A) reads that during the appellate proceedings also the assessee was granted several opportunities to file the submissions and documents in support of grounds of appeal
and statement of facts, but she failed to avail the same by furnishing the documents in support of the grounds of appeal and statement of facts. Learned Addl./JCIT(A), therefore, found no infirmity in the assessment order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer.
4. Assessee, therefore, filed this appeal. At the time of hearing, learned AR, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the Revenue authorities erred in applying the provisions of section 69A of the Act and reaching a conclusion that the amount under addition is unexplained and also submitted that the learned Addl./JCIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and passing an ex parte order only on the basis of inadvertent non-compliance on the part of the assessee, without considering the case on merits and documentary evidences available on record. It was further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned Addl./JCIT(A) ought to have noticed that the assessee received money from rent and also possessed accumulated savings, which in turn were deposited in the bank account and the same is supported by the returns already filed by the assessee and thus, the initial burden of providing the source of cash deposits is established.
5. It is the contention of learned AR that the Revenue authorities ought to have appreciated that the assessee has no other source of income other than rental income and past savings and thus the expression ‘may’ used in Section 69A of the Act requires a judicious approach before concluding. Learned AR further submitted that the Revenue authorities ought to have noticed that the cash deposits having been made by the assessee on or before the month of November, 2016, the higher tax rate of 60% provided under section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable in view of the fact that the said amendment received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 15/12/2016, whereas the impugned transaction took place prior to the said date and thus, the tax rate would be 30% as per un- amended provisions of section 115BBE read with section 294 of the Act.
6. Learned AR submitted that the assessee entrusted the working of handling of the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) to an accountant, though the accountant filed the appeal wherein he gave his personal mail-id for communication, the assessee was under the impression that the accountant would take care of the notices and replies, but the accountant neither responded to the notices nor responded to the calls due to which the assessee had to contact another accountant in the month of February, 2024. He further submitted that the assessee subsequently came to know that since the assessee did not respond to the notices, the appeal was decided ex parte on 18/01/2024 and it is only because the assessee was not aware of the notices as her accountant did not inform the same the assessee could not present her case properly before the learned CIT(A) and finally prayed that in the interest of justice, given an opportunity, assessee is ready to produce all the evidence/relevant material before the learned Assessing Officer and pursue the case diligently since factual verification will help to decide the issue in an effective way. Assessee filed an affidavit to this effect.
7. Learned DR vehemently opposed the request made on behalf of the assessee on the ground that more than sufficient opportunity was granted by the Revenue authorities, but without availing the same, it is not open for the assessee now to seek one more opportunity. According to learned DR, if such a request is granted, it would lead to never ending process and contended that in the absence of any evidence what-so-ever, the authorities are justified in making the addition made.
On a careful consideration of the circumstances pleaded by the assessee, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing improbable in the plea of the assessee that because of non-communication of the notices by the accountant, the lapse occurred on the part of the assessee. Further, the highest that would happen by affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute her case diligently before the learned Assessing Officer by submitting the evidence, is that a cause could be decided on merits. When the technicalities are pitted against the delivery of substantial justice, the former must give way to the later.
With this view of the matter, since the disposal of the matter requires verification of the evidences produced by the assessee, while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer, I direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned Assessing Officer in getting the matters disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that it is the last opportunity to the assessee and no further lenience will be taken. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.