Pallavi Joshi (Adv.) & S.K. Sharma (C.A.) for the Assessee. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) for the Revenue.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.01.2020 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing an appropriate opportunity of being heard which is against law of natural justice.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO was erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and the same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO was erred in making addition of cash deposit of Rs. 14,36,393/- in Axis Band and Rs. 1,09,000/- in ICICI Bank as undisclosed income.

4. The assessee reserves the right to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing.”

2. Due to prevailing COVId-19 pandemic condition the hearing of the appeal is concluded through video conference.

3. At the outset, we note that the present has been filed by the assessee after a gap of more than one year from the date of impugned order however, the assessee has stated in form no. 36 that the impugned order has been served on the assessee only 25.03.2021. We have heard both the parties on the issue of delay if any in filing the present appeal. Since there was an order of the Department relaxing the limitation during period of COVId-19 pandemic as well as decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the limitation provided under general statute i.e. limitation Act under as well as under special statute during this period ending up to mid October, 2021. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case the present appeal filed by the assessee is treated as within a period of limitation.

4. The assessee is an individual and did not file any return of income U/s 139 (of Income Tax Act, 1961). The AO issued a notice U/s 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) on 30.03.2018 but there was no return of income filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued U/s 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961). The Assessing Officer has also issued show cause notice U/s 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) asking the assessee to furnish explanation regarding the income from the activity of trading in commodity as well as source of deposits made in the bank account of the assesee. The Assessing Officer made addition for various deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee with Axis bank and ICICI Bank including interest as well as commission/brokerage income of Rs. 2,612/- total amounting to Rs. 15,69,474/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 15,69,470/- while passing the order U/s 147 (of Income Tax Act, 1961)/144 of the Act. The assessee challenged the ex-parte order passed by the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) summarily.

5. Now before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order without serving a notice on the assessee and further, the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) and to file supporting evidence to explain the source of deposits in the bank account.

6. On the other hand the ld. DR has vehemently objected to grant of one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that despite sufficient opportunities granted by the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) the assessee did not appear before the authority below and therefore, the conduct of the assessee shows that the assessee is not serious about the proceedings but has adopted delaying tactics.

7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in para 2.2 to 3 which reads as under:-

“2.2 I have perused the facts of the case and the assessment order. In this case, the ample number of opportunities given to the appellant are tabulated below:- Date of hearing fixed Remarks 25.09.2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to 22.10.2019 22.10.2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to 20.11.2019 20.11.2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to 12.12.2019 11.12..2019 Filed adjournment letter. Adjourn to

07.01.2019 07.01.2019 None attended

2.2.1 In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant and the Authorized Representative are not interested in contesting the appeal and in-spite of sufficient opportunity and time have not submitted any detail what so ever. On merits it seems that assessee has nothing to say in support of grounds of appeal taken. After careful consideration of the order, I find that Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition, hence ground of appeal is dismissed.

3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Thus it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO on the ground that the assessee is not interested in contesting the appeal in spite of sufficient time granted to him. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has made additions on account of unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee for want of any explanation on behalf of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue by considering any explanation or record to be furnished by the assessee but the appeal of the assessee is summarily dismissed due to non appearance. Except on the last date of hearing i.e. 07.01.2020 which is wrongly mention in the impugned order as 07.01.2019 on all other occasions the ld. CIT(A) accepted the request for adjournment of hearing therefore, the default of appearing before the ld. CIT(A) on the last date of hearing has resulted ex-parte order.

The issue involved in this case is regarding source of deposits made in bank account and the AO accepted the activity of the assessee in commodity trading therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to explain the source of deposits by producing the relevant document/evidence. Accordingly we set aside to the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and the matter is remanded to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the source of deposits with supporting evidence.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

27/10/2021.