Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.
The present appeal is filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 106 days. The appellant furnished an application/ affidavit praying for condonation of delay in the circumstances mentioned therein. Ld. DR could not controvert the averments made in the above affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons mentioned by the assessee constitute reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. In the circumstances, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld, CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing ex-parte order confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 69A in respect of cash deposits of Rs.1,20,54,750 even though the income from business earned in the form of commission has been taxed in his hands, the cash deposits being out of his agency business of two wheelers. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual earns income from repairing and commission on sale of two wheelers. Return of income was not filed by the assessee but on the basis of information available with the Department regarding huge cash deposits of Rs.1,20,54,750/- in his bank account, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 to the assessee after reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 27.01.2022, but no response was received and therefore, vide order dated 10.03.2022 assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act determining income of Rs.1,22,49,983/- which includes Rs.1,20,54,750/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act.
5. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 29.03.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Being aggrieved with the ex-parte decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before us.
Ld. AR submitted before us that the order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unwarranted and bad in law. It was further submitted that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is also submitted that the assessee is not well versed with the technology and therefore completely dependent on his tax consultants for income tax purposes. Since the notices of hearing were sent only on income tax portal and the assessee was not in habit of logging on income tax portal therefore, he could not know that the notices were issued. His tax consultants also did not inform him about the hearing dates, therefore it was prayed before the bench to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to direct ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to provide further opportunity of hearing to submit documents in support of grounds of appeal
8. LD. DR supported the order passed by the subordinate authorities.
9. We have heard Ld. Counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has issued total four notices to the assessee but all the notices were issued on email mentioned on the income tax portal. It is the contention of the ld. counsel of the assessee that the assessee is not familiar with the technology due to which he could not see the hearing notices issued by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. As soon as the assessee came to know about the above ex-parte order he immediately appointed a new tax consultant and approached before this Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee so that he can substantiate his case by filing submission/documents in support of grounds of appeal. We therefore without going into the merits of the case set-aside the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with the direction to decide the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall