2022 (9) TMI 85 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained money u/s 69A - HELD THAT - Notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act were served through affixture on the assessee. Since no compliance was made by the assessee, a final show cause notice u/s 144 dated 29.10.2018 along with notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee fixing the date of hearing on 14.11.2018 to furnish the reasons why the cash deposit in the saving bank account should not treated as unexplained money u/s 69A - In the said notice it was specifically mentioned that in case of non compliance, order under section 144 shall be passed. Since, even on the said date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the order of assessment was passed under section 144/147 thereby making the addition. From the entire sequence of events and the conduct of the assessee in non compliance of the repeated notices, it appears gross negligence on the part of the assessee and wastage of precious time. Non compliance of notice issued by the Authorities and non appearance before the Authorities inspite of repeated notices/summons is dis-regard towards the Authorities - without going into merits, considering the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity is granted to the assessee, and the file is restored back to the AO for consideration afresh, subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- for negligent attitude during income tax proceedings, to be deposited in the Prime Minister s Care Fund and proof thereof should be produced.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Completing appellate proceedings ex parte without sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
3. Making addition of Rs. 15,98,000 as undisclosed income based on assumptions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act
The case involved the assessee challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 by the Assessing Officer (AO) and subsequent confirmation of the same by the ld. CIT (A). The AO initiated proceedings after noticing cash deposits in the assessee's bank account during the financial year 2010-11. Despite multiple notices served to the assessee, non-compliance led to an ex parte assessment under section 144. The ld. CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed the repeated non-compliance by the assessee and granted one more opportunity while imposing a cost for negligence during the proceedings.

Issue 2: Completing appellate proceedings ex parte without sufficient opportunity
The assessee contended that the appellate proceedings were completed ex parte without adequate opportunity to present their case. The ld. CIT (A) provided multiple hearing notices to the assessee, requesting submissions and documents, which went unanswered. The appellate authority decided based on the material available on record due to the assessee's failure to respond. The Tribunal noted the lack of response from the assessee despite numerous opportunities, leading to the decision to restore the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, granting one more chance to the assessee.

Issue 3: Making addition of Rs. 15,98,000 as undisclosed income based on assumptions
The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the AO's addition of Rs. 15,98,000 as unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The AO had provided ample opportunities for the assessee to explain the transactions, but the assessee failed to respond to notices and did not file returns. The ld. CIT (A) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant failed to provide any explanation or grounds for challenging the assessment. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the negligence of the assessee, granted one more opportunity for fresh consideration by the AO, subject to a cost for the negligent attitude during the proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for adjudication afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The other grounds raised were deemed infructuous and not adjudicated upon.