D.DINESH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4(i/c), Chennai dated 30.03.2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his income-tax return disclosing income from salary, income from house property and income from other sources and claimed deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS and notices were issued along with a questionnaire. The assessee filed explanations and clarified the issues raised in the questionnaire in respect of sale of the property and also cash deposit of `21,30,300/- in Savings Bank Account. In the course of hearing proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanations of the assessee and disallowed cash deposits to the extent of `5 lakhs only treating as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act and also made other additions total aggregating to `6,80,105/- and assessed income at ` 9,74,150/- and raised the demand.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), raising various grounds in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and also contended that proper opportunity of being heard was not granted which is violation of principles of natural justice and benefit of further clarifications was not provided. When the case was posted before the CIT(Appeals) on various dates, the assessee neither sought an adjournment nor filed any explanation and nor submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate his case.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising similar grounds and also alleging that there was no proper justification in dismissing the appeal by the CIT(Appeals).

Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that opportunity of being heard was not provided by the CIT(Appeals) in spite of the assessee having required information in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and requested that the matter may be remitted back.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee was not serious in pursuing his case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Hence, the Tribunal may uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals).

After hearing both the parties and on perusing the material available, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that CIT(Appeals), being the first appellate authority, empowered to enhance the assessment, has to re-appreciate the material on record and pass a speaking order. Therefore, merely because the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(Appeals), that cannot be a reason to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

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