2025 (6) TMI 1040 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment completed exparte due to non-compliance with statutory notices - CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte solely on the ground of lack of response from the assessee. HELD THAT - It is now well-settled by a catena of decisions that dismissal of appeal ex-parte without examining the merits can result in failure of justice particularly where the assessee expresses readiness to substantiate his case. In the present case the assessee has explained the reasons for non-compliance and has now expressed readiness to furnish full details with supporting documents to substantiate both the jurisdictional and substantive grounds. We are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity to the assessee. To ensure that the appellate process is not misused and that some responsibility is fixed for the earlier non-compliance we impose a cost of Rs.5, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on the assessee which shall be paid to the credit of the Income Tax Department before the next date of hearing before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall ensure strict compliance and shall deposit the cost of Rs. 5, 000/- as directed above. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

1. Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for non-prosecution was justified, given the assessee's non-response and alleged lack of proper assistance from the authorized representative.

2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were valid, specifically regarding the existence of "reason to believe" and compliance with procedural mandates under sections 147 to 151.

3. Whether the addition made under section 69A of the Act, relating to unexplained cash deposits, was justified in the absence of mandatory maintenance of books of account by the assessee.

4. Whether the Assessing Officer failed to consider withdrawals from the same bank account, which could offset the addition made on account of cash deposits, and whether the assessee's inability to furnish evidence due to non-cooperation of previous tax representatives should be taken into account.

Issue 1: Validity of Ex-Parte Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A)

The legal framework mandates that appeals should be decided on merits unless the appellant fails to comply with statutory requirements and notices. The Court referred to established precedents emphasizing that ex-parte dismissal without examining substantive grounds may cause failure of justice, especially if the appellant demonstrates willingness to cooperate subsequently.

The Court noted that the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) was attributed to inadequate assistance from the former authorized representative rather than deliberate evasion. The assessee expressed readiness to produce relevant documents and substantiate the case on merits.

Given these facts, the Court reasoned that dismissing the appeal ex-parte without hearing the substantive issues was unjust. It held that the interest of justice required restoration of the appeal for fresh adjudication, affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Departmental Representative did not oppose restoration but supported the lower authorities' action based on non-cooperation. The Court balanced the need to prevent misuse of the appellate process with the principle of fairness, imposing a cost on the assessee to ensure accountability.

Conclusion: The ex-parte dismissal was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication with due opportunity to the assessee.

Issue 2: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147

Section 147 requires that reassessment can only be initiated if the Assessing Officer has "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The Court examined whether this threshold was met, particularly regarding the timing and nature of cash deposits in question.

The assessee contended that the reassessment was initiated without proper application of mind, especially concerning the year of deposit, and without fulfilling mandatory procedural requirements under sections 147 to 151.

The Court observed that the reassessment was triggered by information about cash deposits made in the financial year 2012-13, which had not been disclosed in the original return. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1), but the assessee did not respond, leading to ex-parte assessment.

Although the Court did not explicitly quash the reassessment at this stage, it recognized the assessee's contention about procedural lapses and the need to examine the "reason to believe" in detail. Restoration of the matter was deemed appropriate to allow full opportunity to address these issues.

Conclusion: The Court did not uphold the reassessment outright but allowed reassessment proceedings to be reconsidered afresh with proper application of mind and procedural compliance.

Issue 3: Justification of Addition under Section 69A

Section 69A deals with unexplained cash credits, allowing the Assessing Officer to add such amounts to income if the assessee fails to explain the source. The assessee argued that since it was not required to maintain books of account, invocation of section 69A was improper.

The Court noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- representing unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's inability to explain the source was the basis for this addition. However, the assessee claimed it could now provide evidence, including cash flow and withdrawal details, to justify the deposits.

The Court held that since the matter was being restored for fresh adjudication, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate the source of deposits before confirming any addition under section 69A.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not upheld at this stage; the issue was remitted for reconsideration after hearing the assessee.

Issue 4: Consideration of Withdrawals from the Bank Account

The assessee contended that withdrawals from the same bank account were not considered by the Assessing Officer, which could offset the cash deposits. The inability to furnish evidence earlier was attributed to non-cooperation by the previous tax consultant.

The Court acknowledged this contention and observed that the assessee was now in possession of relevant documents and willing to produce them. It emphasized that the Assessing Officer should verify these facts upon restoration of the matter.

Conclusion: The Court directed that the Assessing Officer consider the withdrawals and related evidence in the fresh adjudication.

Significant Holdings and Core Principles Established

"It is now well-settled by a catena of decisions that dismissal of appeal ex-parte without examining the merits can result in failure of justice, particularly where the assessee expresses readiness to substantiate his case."

The Court established the principle that procedural non-compliance by an assessee, if not deliberate, should not lead to forfeiture of the right to be heard on merits, especially when the assessee is willing to cooperate subsequently.

It was held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 must be initiated only upon proper "reason to believe" and following mandatory procedural safeguards, reinforcing the need for Assessing Officers to apply mind carefully before reopening assessments.

The Court emphasized that additions under section 69A require the assessee to be given a fair opportunity to explain the source of unexplained cash credits, particularly where the assessee has not maintained books of account.

Finally, the Court underscored the importance of considering all relevant financial transactions, including withdrawals that may offset deposits, to ensure just and equitable assessment.

The final determinations were that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, and a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee to be paid before the next hearing.