PANDURANG ANTU JADHAV,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, ITO WARD SATARA

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee in this case had not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. On verification of the ITS data it was seen that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.36,53,600/- in his Savings Bank account with Rajarambapur Sahkari Bank Ltd., Branch, Shaniwar Peth, Karad and had also deposited cash of Rs.28,00,200/- in his Savings Bank account with The Karad Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd., Branch, Talbaug, Karad during the financial year 2010- 11. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2018. Since there was no compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, another letter was sent to the assessee to file the return of income. However, there was again no compliance to the said notice. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, which also remained un-complied with. In view of the persistent non-compliance of the assessee to various notices issued, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.64,53,800/- u/s 69A of the Act.

Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) / NFAC despite five opportunities granted, the CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex-parte order passed by him sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee was not well conversant with the technology for which he could not see the notices issued by the CIT(A) / NFAC in the portal. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case. He accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to give one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case.

The Ld. DR on the other hand, while supporting the order of CIT(A) / NFAC drew the attention of the Bench to the persistent non-compliance of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that the order of CIT(A) / NFAC being a reasoned one, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) / NFAC. It is an admitted fact that due to persistent non-compliance of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he was constrained to pass the order u/s 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.64,53,800/- u/s 69A of the Act. We find despite five opportunities granted by the CIT(A) / NFAC, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the CIT(A) / NFAC was also constrained to pass the ex-parte order. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to lack of technical knowledge of the assessee, he could not see the notices issued by the CIT(A) / NFAC in the portal or mail. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by producing the relevant details to explain the cash deposits made in the Savings Bank accounts. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. The CIT(A) / NFAC shall decide the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the details before the CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date of hearing without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.