KRUNAL KAILASH KAPOOR,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD3(1), NASHIK

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual & employed with SUD Life Insurance Company Ltd and was in receipt of salary ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3 therefrom which was offered to tax. The income tax return [‘ITR’ hereinafter] for the year under consideration declaring total income ₹1,69,070/- filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify salary income and sources of cash deposited into his two Saving bank accounts maintained with ‘Union bank of India & HDFC Bank’ totalling to ₹12,62,500/-.

The assessee’s explanation that aforestated cash deposits were made out of his personal saving, bank withdrawals, and amount of gifts received from his family members and one gentleman Mr Ramesh did inspire no confidence to the Ld. AO. In the event the Ld. AO turn-down the explanation as unsatisfactory and treated the entire amount cash deposits as an income of the assessee from unexplained sources and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.

Aggrieved by the aforestated addition, the assessee filed an appeal before first appellate authority, however it could yield no desired result owning to non- prosecution by the assessee. Further aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is before us with following substantive grounds; 1. The assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,62,500 made by the A.O. by treating the entire cash deposits in bank account during A.Y.2016 – 17 as unexplained income without appreciating that the said action of the CIT(A) was not justified on facts and in law.

We heard both the sides on limited ground no 2 and carefully examined the facts of the case. Admittedly, the appellant could not cause any appearance before the first appellate authority which led to ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The appellant however vide affidavit dt. 24/07/2024 placed on record claimed that, the notices of hearing sent to him by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on his registered email went unnoticed and it came first to his knowledge only upon the receipt of impugned order. Having considered the facts of the case holistically, we are satisfied that the appellant for stated reasons was prevented from prosecuting the appeal, hence in the larger interest of justice, we deem it proper to remit the file to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. We order accordingly.

The appeal in results is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday, 01st August, 2024.