ASHOK KUMAR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who has not filed his return of Income for the AY 2017-18. As per the information available in AIMS module the assessee has entered into substantial financial transactions of Rs.1,07,95,997/- but has not filed the return of income. Accordingly, notice u/s 133(6) was issued to the assessee and proceedings u/s 147 for reopening scrutiny assessment were initiated. During the course of assessment proceedings when it was questioned that substantial cash has been deposited in the bank account of the assessee, the assessee has only stated that his income is below the limit for filing of income tax return, so he has not filed the return. Assessee is working as RTO agent involved in the services of issuances of Driving licenses, vehicle permits, vehicle fitness and all services of vehicle work. The Ld. AO observed that no documentary evidence in support of business activity and in support that the income is below taxable limit have been furnished by the assessee. Further details and explanations were not provided by the assessee, therefore, Ld. AO has denied the claim of the assessee on the basis of general statement and has proposed that the credit and cash deposit found in the bank account of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 17288933 during the year under consideration to be treated as unexplained so the same is charged to income tax by invoking the provisions of Section 69(A) of the I.T. Act. Ld. AO further observed that an amount of Rs. 4,32,697/- has been received by te assessee as contractual receipt u/s 194C, which in absence of any explanation by the assessee are treated as income escaped assessment. A draft assessment order indicating proposed addition in respect of the above issues was served on the assessee with a show cause notice dated 16/02/2022, with a request to furnish a reply by 22/02/2022. Assessee has not made any reply to the proposed addition, which was considered as that the assessee has nothing to say. Finally, the draft assessment order was passed as final assessment order with total addition of Rs. 1,77,21,630/-.

Again, dissatisfied with the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, now the assessee has filed the instant appeal before us.

At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a RTO Agent with very meagre income, who has received various amounts on behalf of his clients and such amounts were deposited in his bank accounts and the same were further paid on behalf of the clients in the course of assessee’s regular service work, however, Ld. AO has only concentrated on the receipt side of the bank account of the assessee and has not examined the payments made from the said bank accounts. Ld.AR fairly admitted that the assessee was also on negligence before the Ld. AO in not explaining such details. It is also submitted that the reason for non-response of the assessee before of LD. AO and Ld. CIT(A) was also on account of health issues of the assessee’s mother and wife during the impugned period, which is still continuing whereby the assessee is under great stress. It was the submission of Ld. AR that the defect memo issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A), were not found with attachment, thus, could not be downloaded and opened when the same were reflected on the IT portal. To this effect, assessee has also submitted his response on 27/06/2023 in response to notice dated 23/06/2023 on the ITBA portal saying that “Dear sir,

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is the submission of Ld. AR that on perusal of the aforesaid notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, the defect pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) was “Tax on returned income not paid/ particulars of payment not mentioned”, shows that there was certain returned income however in the present case assessee has never filed any return of income. Ld. AR with such Ld. CIT(A) so as to explain the deposits made by the assessee in his bank account but could not explain before the revenue authorities due to unavoidable circumstances as contended herein above.

Contrary to submission of Ld. AR, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of Revenue Authorities and requested to sustain the same.

We have considered the rival submission, perused the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the assessee was not found to be cautious and compliant towards the show cause and notices of the Revenue Authorities. Ld. AO has made the addition in absence of any plausible explanation supported with corroborative cogent evidence or on the basis of no response by the assessee towards the draft assessment order proposing additions against the assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it is noticed that the defect memos issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were not found by the assessee attached on the ITBA portal, for which assessee has made an e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgment vide No. 304462041270623, wherein last 6 digits of the acknowledgment No. represent date of response which in the present case is 27/06/2023, this shows that the assessee has attempted to look into the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) but was unable to fetch the same. Further, a perusal of the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it was observed that “the

In backdrop of aforesaid observations and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, in interest of substantial justice, without dealing with the merits of the grounds of appeal, we deem it suitable to restore the issues raised in the present appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues afresh. The assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with and assist in the set aside appellate proceedings without any excuse, failing which Ld. CIT(A) would be at discretion to decide the issue in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in terms of our observations.