DILAWAR KOCHAY,ANANTNAG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER ANANTNAG, ANANTNAG

ITA 48/ASR/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Dillawar Kochay against the order of the CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the addition made by the Income Tax Officer, Anantnag, under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition pertained to a cash deposit of Rs. 13.18 lakhs in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period, which was part of a total bank credit of Rs. 20.76 lakhs. The assessee contended that he was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard due to the prevailing situation in Jammu & Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370, and that notices were not properly served. The Tribunal noted the absence of representation and the failure to receive notices as claimed by the assessee, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the lack of proper opportunity given to the assessee, decided to remand the case for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360716 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 48/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dillawar Kochay, Ameerpora, Nambal Mattan Jammu & Kashmir-192125 [PAN: BWDPK 3683B] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Anantnag (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A. Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 24.04.2025 21.05.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.09.2023 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (4), Anantnag dated 18.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 48/Asr/2024 Dillawar Kochay v. ITO 2. Condonation of delay:- It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belated by 78 days. The CIT (A) order is dated 22/09/2023 and the due date for filing expires on 21/11/2023 and the date of actual filing before the tribunal was 07/02/2024. An affidavit has been filed by the assessee stating that the assessee is an old man of eighty two years (82 years), without any technical knowledge of computer applications. He handed over his appeal matter to a counsel who has not caused any representation before the Ld first appellate authority and has never informed the assessee regarding the notices issued from the appeal office and has also not informed the assessee regarding the ex-parte disposal of the appeal order, which has resulted in delay filing of this appeal through a newly appointed counsel. As such he prays for condonation of the delay and admission of the appeal for decision on merits. The Ld. DR has no objection. Taking into consideration the reasons submitted by the assessee the delay is condoned and the appeal admitted to be heard on merits. 3. Grounds of Appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. The Ld. CIT A was not justified in refusing to decide on ground no 1 & 2 raised in the appeal on the plea that the assessee has not mentioned on which action of AO he is aggrieved. The said ground reads as \"The AO has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard taking into account the prevailing situation in the valley when all communication was disrupted and economic activity had come to a standstill following revocation of article 370 on 5th August 2019\" & \" Notices mentioned in 3 I.T.A. No. 48/Asr/2024 Dillawar Kochay v. ITO Assessment Order were not served on the Assessee\". The learned Assessing officer is not justified in taking recourse to the provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act as He was not being given an opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made by JAO without evaluating the information/records. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made by JAO without appreciating the written submission made on account of the source of deposits of cash in his bank account and the differential treatment given by AO on the cash deposits in the same bank account in the same year. The Appellant may please be allowed to submit additional information/documents before the Hon'ble Bench as additional evidence as the appellant has not got an opportunity to present his case. His consultant has not perused the case although he was duly authorized for appearing before the CIT(A) and has not even informed him of dismissal of Appeal by CIT (A) with the result he was not able to file the Appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal on time. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal during the hearing of the case.” 4. The brief facts as emerging from records are that the assessee has bank account credits transactions during FY 2016-17, amounting to Rs.20. 76 lakhs, which includes an amount of cash deposit of Rs. 13.18 lakhs, during the demonetization period and no regular return has been filed. Various notices issued by the AO in course of assessment proceedings have remained uncomplied, even though in the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed to have filed written submissions. The assessment has been completed (as per direction of Additional CIT u/s 144A of the 4 I.T.A. No. 48/Asr/2024 Dillawar Kochay v. ITO Act 1961) on a total income of Rs. 13.79 lakhs including an addition of Rs.13.18 lakhs u/s 69A of the Act for SBN deposit during demo period. 5. The matter carried in first appeal before Ld CIT(A) NFAC, has been dismissed in absence of any representation by the assessee in course of appellate proceedings , to several notices issued by the office of the Ld first appellate authority on four different occasions (as evident from para –5 of the appeal order), on the ITBA portal. It is the contention of the Ld AR of the assessee that notice of hearing has not be received by the assessee, because the notice has never been issued in the email provided in form 35, and proper opportunity to explain his case has not been allowed and he prays for one last opportunity to submit all his papers and documents to explain the case. 6. The Ld. DR has no objection if the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. 7. We are of the opinion that deposit of SBN in bank during the demonetization period, needs to be explained to the satisfaction of the AO , with supporting cash book entries along with other documentary evidences and in the instant case the assessment proceedings were completed at a time when the assessee was prevented by various reasons for non appearance leading to an ex parte order. 8. In the interest of justice we set aside the matter back to the assessing office, for fresh adjudication on merits after affording proper and reasonable opportunity of 5 I.T.A. No. 48/Asr/2024 Dillawar Kochay v. ITO being heard to the assessee, and the assessee is directed to file all necessary supporting evidence and books of accounts to explain his case including the deposit of SBN in bank accounts. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 21.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order "