TAMMI RAJU VEGESNA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMALAPURAM

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member :

2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income under the head ‘Salary / Pension’ has e-filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 05/08/2017 declaring an annual income of Rs. 2,82,640/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny to verify the ‘cash deposits during the demonetization period’. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 30/09/2018. Thereafter, notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 14/2/2019 & 27/11/2019 calling for information along with detailed questionnaire were served on the assessee. Vide para 2, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee in his reply dated 24/09/2019 and 19/12/2019 submitted that he was a retired professor of ANGR Agricultural University and getting pension and income from agriculture. However, the assessee has not offered any agricultural income for the FY 2016-17 in the return of income filed nor furnished any corroborating documents in support of his claim. The Ld. AO on perusal of the information received from various bank(s) noted that the assessee made cash deposits into his saving bank account with Union Bank of India, Vedureswaram during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs. 10,50,000/-. The Ld. AO observed in his order that though the assessee was given several opportunities to explain the 3 sources for the said cash deposits with documentary evidence, since the assessee has not complied with any of the notices issued, the Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act and brought to tax the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 10,50,000/- as unexplained money. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the assessed income at Rs. 13,32,640/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO. While dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC observed that till the date of passing of the order, the assessee neither filed any response to the notices nor filed written submissions and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis of the material available on record.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in deciding the appeal without affording appropriate opportunity to the appellant.

4 2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit U/s. 69A made by the Ld. AO.

5. Before the Tribunal, it is the submission of the assessee that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the assessee and submitted that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee responded to the notices nor filed any written submissions before the Ld. CIT (A)- NFAC. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC does not call for any interference.

Pronounced in the open Court on the 30th May, 2023.