VIKRANT RAJENDRA BIDKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), PUNE, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 09.02.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed for the A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information received that the appellant made a cash deposit of Rs.93,37,684/- during demonetization period with the Pune Cantonment Sahakari Bank, Dhanakwadi Branch, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the appellant on 29.11.2017. However, the appellant had failed to comply with the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO had proceeded with the framing of the assessment order u/s.144 after making addition of Rs.93,37,684/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The AO also added interest income of Rs.1,863/- as income from other sources.

Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that the appellant had failed to fulfil the necessary conditions for admission of appeal before CIT(A) as per section 249(4)(b).

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the matter was called on, there was none to represent the case of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.

The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the authorities were justified in confirming the addition related to cash deposit as well as interest income in the absence of assessee substantiating the sources of cash deposits. Therefore, no interference by this Tribunal is called for.

We heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) by holding that the appellant had failed to discharge the advance tax liability. However, there is no material on record to indicate that there was any taxable income but for the addition made by the AO. In the circumstances, there was no liability either to pay the advance tax or pay the self-assessment tax. The CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b). Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issues in appeal on merits based on the material available on record. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.