NISHAT HUSSEIANLI VAZIR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit on account of the sale of immovable property.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and furnished his return of income on 20.06.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,08,729/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee. The assessee has not responded to any of the above notices. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has purchased and sold immovable properties. Apart from the above sale and purchase transactions, he has also deposited cash in his bank accounts. Since the assessee remained absent, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte by determining the total income at Rs.2,06,83,929/- as against the Rs.5,08,729/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.2,01,75,200/- u/s 68 and 69 of the IT Act.

Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. It was submitted that the assessee was a NRI and due to difference in time zone in USA and India, the assessee was not in direct touch with his consultant in India and, therefore, could not know about the dates of hearing provided by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was also submitted that the assessee was not in a habit of frequently checking the income tax site and due to all these circumstances, could not reply to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was sole prayer of the counsel of the assessee that if opportunity is given to the assessee he will submit proper reply along with supporting evidences and documents in support of grounds of appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Under the above facts of the case, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and provide one opportunity to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to explain his case.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee never appeared either before the Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and due to these reasons both the authorities below have passed ex-parte orders in absence of the assessee. It was the submission of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was NRI when first appeal order was passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and he was not available in India. We find some force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was not available in India at the relevant time & could not see the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly in the interest of justice we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a