PUDIPEDDI VENKATA NAGAMANI, VISAKHAPATNAM V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 167/VIZ/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7016 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA VILLURI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 131; 69; 144; 133(6); 69A; 139(1); 139(4)

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम ‘SMC” पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM ‘SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani D.No.43-3-34, Flat No.102 Ayyappa Residency Railway New Colony Visakhapatnam [PAN :AJXPN9659G] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Smt.A.Aruna, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061159448(1) dated 19.02.2024, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 18.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.11,49,000/- by way of cash, during the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in the F.Y. 2016-17 in the Bank accounts maintained with various banks. As per the records, the assessee had not filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 either u/s 139(1) or u/s 139(4) of the I.T. Act 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) vide letter dt.22.04.2019 called for details of the assessee as per KYC norms, statement of bank account held in the name of assessee during the financial year 2016-17 and details of other accounts held by the assessee from the Axis Bank, Thiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai, Canara Bank, Visakhapatanam and Yes Bank, Adyar, Chennai under the provisions of Section 133(6) of the Act. In response, statement of bank account for account no. 910010004268760 relating to the period between 01.04.2016 and 31.03.2017 held by the assessee with the Axis Bank, Thiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai, and for account no. 5661101001376 for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 from Canara Bank, were received from the Bank authorities. Summon u/s 131 of the I.T. Act was also issued to the Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Vishakapattanam on 10.12.2019 to obtain the statement and the same was received. The AO has tabulated cash deposits of Rs. 12,81,726/- in the bank accounts of the 3 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam assessee. The AO observed that despite repeated opportunities given for being heard, the assessee neither filed any return of income nor furnished any documents being called for. The AO thus held that assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of all cash deposits and other credits appearing in the Bank account to the tune of Rs. 12,81,726/- for the FY 2016-17, relevant to Assessment Year 2017- 18. Therefore, the AO treated the credits, including cash deposits appearing the bank accounts, of Rs. 12,81,726/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.12,81,726 made u/s 69A of 4 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation period and subjecting the same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time hearing. 5. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the AO is not justified in making addition of Rs.12,81,726/- made u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation period and subjecting the same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO and dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice to substantiate her case with cogent material evidences, otherwise, the assessee would suffer irreparable financial loss. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR argued that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities before the revenue authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.11,49,000/- by way of cash, during the demonetization period 5 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in the F.Y. 2016-17 in the bank accounts maintained with various banks. Assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s. 144 of the Act and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.12,81,726/-. On appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate her claim in support of the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence pleaded for an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate her case with cogent material evidences. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the department during the proceedings. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 6 I.T.A. No.167/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam Order pronounced in the open court on 28 th May, 2024. Sd/- (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 28.05.2024 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Smt.Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, D.No.43-3- 34, Flat No.102, Ayyappa Residency, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue –The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road, Visakhapatnam 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam