Satya Narayan Keshari, Varanasi V. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Varanasi

ITA 30/VNS/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9547 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT ‘SMC’ BENCH, VARANASI (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.30 /VNS/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Satya Narayan Keshari, K-46/236, Hartirath, Visheshwarganj, Varanasi, U.P PAN-ACZPP9230E v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Mr. O.P. Shukla, Adv Respondent by: Mr. Amit Nigam, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 28.01.2022 Date of pronouncement: 28.01.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.10.2021 of CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds as under:- 1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified to pass an Ex-party order without given proper opportunity to the hearing of the appeals. It is worth while to mention that the site of income tax Department was not working and no any assessment appeals or any documents was not possible to upload due to the non working the site of department. The notice has been sent by the department on ITBA but 1TBA site was not in a position to assessee by the appellant. But without given proper opportunity of hearing of the said case has passed the Ex-Party order. Which is deserve to the quashed. 2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has mention the date of hearing on which the appellant has filed adjournment. It is worth while to mentioned that in this period pandemic Covid-19 was peak and offices were closed staff was on leave, business premises is fully closed and on that circumstance the counsel of the assesse have no option to seek adjournment in the said case. However the several cases in which appeal paper books have been filled but no order has been passed but on the ITA No.30/VNS/2021 Satya Narayan Keshari 2 reasonable cause the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) Faceless has dismissed the appeal which is liable to be quashed. 3. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) mention in the order that the assessing officer has made addition Rs. 400500.00 out of Rs. 820200.00 deposited in the bank account during demonetization period the Ld. CIT(A) without taking the grounds of appeal whether the facts has been mention has passed the such type of commnets which is not acceptable in the eyes of law.” 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer has made an addition to Rs. 4,00,500/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) however, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing ex parte order. 3. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to some technical problems, the assessee could not have access of the notices sent by the CIT(A) and also could not upload the documents. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of deposits made in the bank account despite the facts that this amount was found as opening cash balance. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the opening cash balance cannot be added for the year under consideration which may be assessed in the preceding year. He has further contended that due to technical problems, the assessee could not submit its reply and documents before the CIT(A) in the faceless proceedings. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that if the assessee has not produced any detail and evidence before the CIT(A) and even do not file any submission then the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A). 5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record at the outset, it is noted that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte when no response was received from the assessee despite various notices were sent through email. From the details of the notices and response as given by the CIT(A) in the impugned order, it is noted that out of the five notices the assessee ITA No.30/VNS/2021 Satya Narayan Keshari 3 responded four notices and shought adjournments but only the last notice remained un-responded and the assessee has explained that the assesse could not access the last notice and therefore, the assessee could not submit the reply and documents. Since this is an addition made by the Assessing Officer on account unexplained deposit in the bank account and this fact is not denied by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown this amount of Rs. 4,00500/- as opening cash balance then it requires a proper verification whether the same can be added for the year under consideration or the Assessing Officer ought to have initiate the proceedings for the preceding year. Since the CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open Court after conclusion of hearing on 28 .01.2022 through video conferencing and written order is signed on the date given below. Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29/01/2022 Allahabad Sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A), Allahabad 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar