MARUTI LAXMAN PARSE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 12.09.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was filed for the assessment year 2017-18. On receipt of the information that the appellant had made cash deposits of Rs.24,50,000/- with Indian Overseas Bank during the period of demonetization i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 22.01.2018. The appellant had not complied with the said notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Based on this information, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs.37,67,870/- after making addition on account of unexplained credit of Rs.15,00,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From perusal of the impugned order, it is not clear that the NFAC had issued the notice of hearing and also there is no proof of service of notice of hearing. In the circumstances, it can be presumed that the NFAC had passed the impugned order without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant to represent the matter before him and this approach of the NFAC is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The NFAC fell in