MAJHAR ISMAIL HASHMI SAYAD,PARBHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & TPS , PARBHANI

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in deciding the issue only on the basis of material available with them, this action is being violative of principal of natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit:

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.19,51,000 u/s 69 A- Unexplained Money, being cash deposits in UCO Bank A/c, without appreciating the fact appellant is an agriculturist and do not have any taxable income, and source of such money is available, therefore no addition is warranted. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal

before or during the course of hearing.”

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an agriculturist deriving income from agricultural activities and operating a saw mill and earning income from cutting trees and selling firewood locally. Based on the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer found that assessee has deposited a cash of Rs.19,51,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with UCO Bank. On verification of the system data of the Income Tax Department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the IT Act for the year under consideration. Therefore, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 27.03.2018 requesting the assessee to file his return of income. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 11.07.2018. Since the assessee failed to file his return of income, a show-cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271F was issued on 11.07.2018 and 10.08.2018 respectively. Since the assessee failed to comply with any notices, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 09.11.2018 by making the addition of Rs.19,51,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act.

4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order dated 11.12.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

5. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6. When the present appeal was called for hearing, None appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any application for adjournment was filed. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record & after hearing LD DR.

7. There is a delay of 64 days in filing of this appeal, although no-body has appeared from the side of the assessee but in the interest of justice as well as smallness of delay, we condone the delay & admit the appeal for adjudication.

8. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into the merits of the case had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution. Now, the law is settled to the extent