Neelam Chauhan vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3)

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 15.01.2025, for AY 2016-17.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has issued four notices to the assessee i.e. on 17.11.2024, 21.11.2024, 29.11.2024 and 17.12.2024, in response to all the said notices the assessee requested for adjournment. No specific reply was furnished by the assessee. During assessment proceedings no submissions were made by the assessee. In the absence of any assistance from the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.1,32,88,500/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') treating the money received by the assessee as unexplained money. Even, in proceeding before the Tribunal the Counsel for the assessee has prayed for an adjournment to file paper book. Considering entire facts of the case and in larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to make submissions before the AO and explain the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,32,88,500/-in his bank account with ICICI bank during the period relevant to assessment year.

The AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee and after considering the submissions and documents, if any, furnished by the assessee shall reframe the assessment, in accordance with law.

The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) issue by the AO, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.