PRADEEP PLAHA, INDORE V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

ITA 170/Ind/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1344 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.170/Ind/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pradeep Plaha LG-39 Dawa Bazar, RNT Marg Dawa Bazar Indore Vs. ITO 1(1) Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ADEPP2768F Assessee by Shri Arpit Gaur, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.06.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 29.12.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2017-18.The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That, the learned CIT(A) as well as the ld. AO grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the ex-parte orders without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. ITANo.170/Ind/2024 Pradeep Plaha Page 2 of 4 2. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirining the action of the AO for determining the income of the appellant at Rs.37,03,940/- for the relevant assessment year by framing an Assessment Order under s. 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is quite illegal, bad-in-law and void-ab- initio. 3. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the ld. AO for making an addition of Rs.32,24,250/ u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account without properly considering and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.." 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing the impugned ex-parte order. He has referred to the para 4 of the CIT(A) and submitted that initial two notices issued by the CIT(A) were during the Covid pandemic period and thereafter the assesse has responded to the notice dated 12.12.2022 and requested for adjournment. However in the meant time the Counsel for the assessee met with an accident and could not attend hearing or filed requisite details and written submission before the CIT(A) and consequently the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal while passing ex- parte order. He has also pointed out that the AO has also passed ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act and whereby addition of Rs.37,03,940/- was made on account of deposit of cash in the bank account of the assesse during the year under consideration. Thus, ld. AR has submitted that the assesse be given one more opportunity to present its case and filed requisite details and evidences to explain source of the cash deposit in the bank ITANo.170/Ind/2024 Pradeep Plaha Page 3 of 4 account. Hence, he has prayed that the matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has raised no serious objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering relevant details and evidences to explain the source of deposit made in the bank account of the assesse. 4. We have considered the rival submission as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO has issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) to the assessee to explain the source of total cash deposit made in the bank account during the year under consideration. However, there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice dated 24.06.2019 and therefore, the AO has issued another notice on 12.07.2019 but there was no compliance on behalf of the assesse. Accordingly the AO proposed to make best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act and ultimately assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.37,03,940/- by making an addition of Rs.32,24,250/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act. The assesse challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) however, due to noncompliance and response to the notice issued by the CIT(A) the appeal of the assesse was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assesse has now explained the reasons for non-compliance and appearance in the proceedings before the CIT(A) as the counsel of the assesse met with an accident and therefore, he could not attend proceedings. Accordingly in the facts and circumstance of the case ITANo.170/Ind/2024 Pradeep Plaha Page 4 of 4 when the assessment order was passed u/s 144 and CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assesse while passing ex-parte impugned order the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after verification, examination and considering the relevant details and evidences in support of source of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. Needless to say the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.06.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore,_ 28 .06.2024 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore