Ramanujam Selvam, Villupuram V. Ito, ward 2 villupuram, Villupuram

ITA 1551/CHNY/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8643 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIDHI D. JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 139(4)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी) ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1551/CHNY/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ramanujam Selvam, 1-74/A, Road Street, V Pagandai, Villupuram – 605 501. [PAN CMRPS 2968E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 Villupuram. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से /Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057454727(1) dated 27.10.2023. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Villupuram for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 11.12.2019. 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessment framed by the AO is best judgment assessment passed ITA No.1551/Chny/2023 - 2 - u/s.144 of the Act, as the assessee could not file return of income either u/s.139(1) or 139(4) of the Act or even there is no response to the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act along with questionnaires calling for details of source of cash deposits made during demonetization period. The CIT(A) also passed ex-parte order. The CIT(A) recorded this fact of non-compliance in his order at para 7.1 as under:- “7.1 The instant appeal has been filed against order u/s144 dated 11.12.2019 for A.Y.2017-18 with the grounds of appeal and statement of facts, as extracted above. After the transfer of appeal to NFAC, hearing notices u/s.250 have been issued on various dates i.e.03.02.2021, 28.04.2022, 25.09.2023 and 12.10.2023. But no compliance has been made and no written submission or any other document has been filed. On perusal of the order sheet extracted from ITBA System, there is no mention of any compliance made by the appellant earlier also and no submission made by the appellant are on record. On verification from ITBA System, it is seen that the notices dated 25.09.2023 and 12.10.2023 have been duly “Delivered” on the email address [e-mail] and [e-mail] as given in Form 35 for further correspondence as per ITBA System. But no response was submitted by the appellant. Even to a subsequent notice dated 12.10.2023 giving another two week’s time upto 20.10.2023 no response has been submitted till date. In absence of no response forthcoming from the appellant in spite of several notices issued over a long period of time, the appeal has to be decided on merits based on the facts/documents on record.” The ld.counsel for the assessee drew my attention to ground No.2 of the appeal, which reads as under:- “2. Learned CIT(A) has acted against the principal of natural justice without giving enough opportunity.” ITA No.1551/Chny/2023 - 3 - 3. Admittedly, the assessee has deposited demonetized cash of Rs.22,56,500/- during demonetization period in assessee’s bank account maintained with Indian Bank, Radhapuram Branch and total cash deposited during the financial year 2016-17 was Rs.1,59,68,540/- including demonetized cash. The AO added the entire demonetized cash deposit to the returned income of the assessee and also estimate the profit @ 8% on the cash deposited during the financial year 2016-17 (excluding the demonetized cash of Rs.1,37,12,040/-) and assessed the business income at Rs.10,96,963/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) also confirmed for non- compliance of the assessee but on merits. 4. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he opposed remitting the matter back to the file of the AO and setting aside the order of AO and that of the CIT(A). 5. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, there is enough opportunities provide to the assessee by the AO as well as by the CIT(A) and the assessee did not avail the opportunities. But in the interest of substantial justice, I set aside the order of AO and that of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for representing proper facts before the AO for adjudication of both the ITA No.1551/Chny/2023 - 4 - issues but with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras on or before 28.03.2024. The assessee will pay this cost and produce the receipt before the AO. In term of the above, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and matter restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the AO will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is also directed to represent his case as and when notice is issued, otherwise adverse view can be taken against the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 21 st February, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 21 st February, 2024 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.