M.P MANOHARAN,KANNUR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3,KANNUR, KANNUR

ITA 716/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M.P. Manoharan, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appellant had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 9,18,540, which was significantly increased by the Income Tax Officer to Rs. 57,90,234 due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) initially disposed of the appeal ex parte due to non-prosecution, as the appellant failed to appear, attributing it to hearing notices going to the spam folder. The appellant appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found merit in the appellant's claim of not receiving proper notice and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471707 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN RAJ S.
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Application of stay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 716/Coch/2023 & SA No. 186/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M.P. Manoharan .......... Appellant Vinayasree, Keezhur P.O., Iritty Kannur 670703 [PAN: ADGPM2741P] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 3, Kannur Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 09.08.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 20.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 9,18,540/- . Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, 2 ITA No. 716/Coch/2023 & SA 186 M.P. Manoharan Ward-3, Kannur (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 20.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 57,90,234/-. While doing so, the AO made addition on account of cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBN) made during the demonetisation period of Rs. 47,48,000/- for failure of the appellant to explain the source. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order disposed of the appeal exparte for non- prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted during the course of hearing that the appellant could not put in appearance before the CIT(A), as the hearing notices were served through email, which went to the spam folder. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of AO. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR has not raised any serious objection. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the proceedings before the CIT(A) were taken up during the Covid-19 pandemic period except one notice dated 16.12.2023. Furthermore, in the absence of hearing 3 ITA No. 716/Coch/2023 & SA 186 M.P. Manoharan notice, which were served through email and went unnoticed by the appellant, the appellant could not put in appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from putting in appearance before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing the assessee. 8. Since the appeal is disposed of, the stay petition filed by the assessee becomes infructuous. 9. In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes and stay application is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st February, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "