VISHAL CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(2)(5), SURAT

िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Chetan Agarwal, C.A राज� की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 02.01.2023 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 02.01.2023 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat [for short to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2022 for assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arises out assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, (Act) dated 02.12.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 20,23,439/- being cash deposited in bank and Rs. 11,00,000/- being time deposit in bank u/s 69A of the Act without giving an effective opportunity of hearing and in passing ex-party order..

(AY 202-13) Vishal Chandulal Patel 2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned ex parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in para-5.7 of impugned order has recorded that despite giving final opportunity no compliance was made on the part of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) finally dismissed the appeal of assessee without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee is not much literate person and is living in the village. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if the assessee is given chance to contest the appeal on merit. The cash deposits in the bank was either from withdrawal/ transfer from other accounts and resulted in double addition. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh in accordance with law.

3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee was given ample opportunities as reflected by Ld. CIT(A) recorded in para-5.7 of his order. The ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits (AY 202-13) Vishal Chandulal Patel that Ld. CIT(A) has left no option but to decide the issue raised by assessee on the basis of materials available on record since no corroborative materials placed on record by assessee the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. In alternative submission, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that in case the Hon’ble Tribunal is deem appropriate, the assessee be directed to be vigilant and not to default in attending the proceedings and to waste the time of public authorities/ld. CIT(A).

4. I have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record and the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that during assessment stage, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 31,23,439/- on account of undisclosed sources, deposited in HDFC Bank. The assessing officer made addition by taking view that no reply was given by assessee no any details were furnished. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer passed ex parte impugned order.

5. Before me, the Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently argued that assessee was not given fair and reasonable opportunity either by Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings or by Ld.