RAJIV KUMAR SRIDHAR,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-5 , PANIPAT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 310/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18
Rajiv Kumar Sridhar, Vs. ITO, Ward-5, 309/10, near New Sabzi Panipat. Mndi, Panipat (Haryana). PAN :AKTPS2920E (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 20.03.2023 Date of pronouncement 31.03.2023
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 17.12.2022
passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
pertaining to assessment year 2017-18.
In the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the ex parte
disposal of his appeal by the first appellate authority.
2 ITA No.310/Del./2023
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. As
stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file any return of
income under Section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under
dispute. After receiving information that in the financial year relevant
to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee has deposited cash
in two bank accounts coinciding with the demonetization period, the
Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-
Tax Act,1961 calling upon the assessee to file a return of income and
also to explain the source of cash deposits. As alleged by the
Assessing Officer, the assessee did not respond to the notice issued
under Section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, he proceeded to complete
the assessment ex parte to the best of his judgment by invoking the
provisions of section 144 of the Act. While doing so, he added back an
amount of Rs.19,56,177 to the income of the assessee. Against the
assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before the
First Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the impugned
order.
Before me, the sole grievance of the assessee is that without
providing reasonable opportunity of being heard the first appellate
3 ITA No.310/Del./2023
authority has disposed of the appeal ex parte by confirming the
addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Having considered rival submissions, I find, both the assessment
proceedings and the first appellate proceedings were decided ex parte.
From the impugned order of the first appellate authority, it is observed
that the last date of hearing of appeal was fixed before the first
appellate authority on 02.12.2022. The first appellate authority heard
the appeal on that day by mentioning that no response was received
from the appellant. However, learned counsel appearing for the
assessee submitted that the assessee had uploaded in the portal of the
department an application seeking adjournment, which was
completely ignored by first appellate authority. Be that as it may,
since, assessee’s sole grievance is against lack of opportunity and he is
seeking a fair opportunity to represent his case before the
departmental authorities, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the
assessee to do so. Accordingly, the impugned order of the first
appellate authority is hereby set aside and the issues are restored back
to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
4 ITA No.310/Del./2023
At the same time, I direct the assessee to comply with the
queries to be raised by the Assessing Officer and participate in the
assessment proceedings and extend all cooperation to the Assessing
Officer in finalizing the proceedings. It is open to the assessee to
furnish any evidence, which may be required to explain the source of
the cash deposits made in the bank account. Grounds are allowed for
statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2023.
Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st March, 2023. Mohan Lal
