AMARJEET SINGH,KAITHAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAITHAL

361 & 410 -Chd-2024 Rajwinder Singh, Ludhiana & Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal 2 30.01.2024 respectively passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

Since the facts and issue involved in both the appeals are identical, hence the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

This appeal in the case of Rajwinder Singh (ITA No. 361/Chd/2024) is barred by 24 days, whereas, the appeal of the Assessee in the case of Amarjeet Singh, is barred by 06 days. Considering the shortness of the delay, the same is hereby condoned in both the cases.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the Assessee despite notices in both the cases.

An adjournment application has been filed in the case of Assessee Shri Rajwinder Singh in ITA No. 361/Chd/2024. It is to be noted that the identical adjournment applications have been filed by the Assessee several times. However, considering the short issue involved in this appeal, I proceed to decide the present appeal after hearing the ld. DR and going through the record.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information that the Assessee had deposited cash of Rs.6,55,694/- in his bank account. Since the Assessee did not file return of income, therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and show caused the Assessee as to why the said amount deposited be not treated as unexplained income of the Assessee. However, the Assessee did not file any reply. The Assessing Officer (A.O.). therefore, made the impugned addition treating the said amount as unexplained income of the Assessee in the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act.

In the first appeal, the Assessee pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that the income of the Assessee was below the taxable limit. It was further pleaded that the Assessee was an illiterate person and was an agriculturist and did not know nitty gritties of the tax proceedings. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessee was having taxable income because of the bank deposit in his account and further that the Assessee had not deposited the advance tax payable by him. He, therefore, did not adjudicate the appeal on 361 & 410 -Chd-2024 Rajwinder Singh, Ludhiana & Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal 4 merits but dismissed the appeal of the Assessee as not admissible for non deposit of advance tax.

After hearing the ld. DR, I am of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. The Assessee in this case, from the very beginning has stated that he is an agriculturist and that his income was below taxable limit. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was supposed to consider the aforesaid submissions of the Assessee. Every deposit in the bank account cannot always be an income of the Assessee. Therefore, the condition of deposit of advance tax could not be imposed blindly without considering the contention of the Assessee that his income was below the taxable limit. The Assessee, therefore, was required to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the ld. CIT(A). Further, as noted above, the impugned assessment order is also an ex-parte assessment order. In my view, the interests of justice will be well served if, the Assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. (A.Y. 2012-13)

In this appeal, the Assessee is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in confirming he addition of Rs. 30 lakhs made by the A.O. on account of unexplained bank deposits in the bank account of the Assessee. The facts and issue involved in this case are identical to that have been discussed above while adjudicating ITA No. 361/Chd/2024.

In view of my observations made above, this appeal is also restored to the file of the A.O. for de novo assessment. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present his case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also directed to present his case before the Assessing Officer as and when asked for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay.