Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Ys. 2017-18 Rafat Naseem Siddhiqui, Vs. Income Tax Officer), C-201, Sterling Apartment, 5 Ashok Marg, 9-University Road, Lucknow New Hyderabad, Lucknow PAN BAAPS 5018M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT( DR) Date of hearing 13/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The assessee filed his return of income on 30.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,10,100/-. In view of non- compliance by the assessee, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) at a total income of Rs.18,07,080 /-.
Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the said addition. However, again, there was no compliance by the assessee and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed by the NFAC. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances the case in deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording proper opportunity to the appellant.
2. That the Ld. CITIA has failed to appreciate that the appellant is an old man retired from service and is about 68 years of age and not keeping good health and therefore is not fully conversant with the e-procedure in respect of assessment proceedings as well as the appellant proceedings before the CIT(A) and therefore, there was n justification in passing the order ex-parte by the CIT(A) on the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in law.
3. That in any view of the matter the order of the CIT(A) passed ex-parte is contrary to principle of natural justice as no proper opportunity was allowed to the appellant more particularly even it was in his knowledge that the notices issued under section 250 by him were not complied with by the appellant, without making any effort to make an Inquiry with reference to reasons in respect of the same before passing of the ex-parte order. 4 That in any view of the matter the ex-parte order passed by the Ld CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.
5. That the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section by are not applicable in case of bank deposits treated as unexplained by the Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) as no books of accounts are maintained by the appellant and therefore there arises no question of recording/non-recording of the same in the books of account as envisaged by the provisions of section 69A of the Income-tax Act 1961. 6 That the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the evidence which was available on record in form of copies of bank accounts summoned by the Assessing Officer under section 131 wherein huge amount of cash withdrawals were appearing prior to deposit made by the appellant in the bank accounts after demonetization which took place on 08.11.2016 which in turn was sufficient to establish the source of cash deposit in bank account post demonetization. 7 That the Ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 1,05,476/- to the income of the appellant on account of mismatch of bank interest as shown by the appellant in the return of income voluntarily filed vis-à-vis as appearing in Form 26AS. 8 That the appellant craves leave to add alter amend or withdraw any or all grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of the hearing”
The ld. A.R. submitted that in the interest of justice, the appeal may be restored to the Office of the Assessing Officer (AO) and undertook to ensure complete compliance in the set aside proceedings.
The ld. D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the AO.
I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that there was complete non compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of first appellate proceedings. However, looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.