9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or short, 'the Act') for assessment year (AY) 2017-18 dated 05.10.2019. The grounds raised by the appellant is as under: - "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that assessee has not fulfilled the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the I.T act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that appeal cannot be admitted in view of specific provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, without appreciating that in sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted substantial cash in his bank account during demonetization period (from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). Hence, notice u/s 142(1) was issued and served upon the assessee but the assessee did not respond to the said notice. Accordingly, Assessing Officer (AO) has passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act on 05.10.2019. It is mentioned in the assessment order that appellant has deposited cash of Rs.25.90 lakh in his bank account maintained in The Financial Co-Op. Bank, New Bombay Market, Umarwada, Surat. In absence of the return of income and reply of assess to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the source of cash deposits could not be explained. The AO has mentioned that as many as five opportunities were granted to appellant but there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as payable by him to get his appeal admitted. Since the appellant had not paid the impugned tax, a deficiency letter was issued to the appellant requesting for compliance within five days of receipt of the said deficiency letter. In response to the deficiency letter, the appellant vide its reply dated 15.12.2023 stated that when the appellant has not filed return of income for the impugned assessment year, the question of paying tax thereon does not arise. Hence, there is no mistake apparent on the part of appellant in filing Form-35. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the submission of appellant and held that appeal is not liable to be admitted unless appellant has paid amount equal to the amount of advance tax, which was payable by him if no return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case on merit in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He, however, stated that the Department would not have any objecting if the matter is restored back to the file of AO. 6. We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the records carefully. We find that the AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act because appellant did not comply with the notices issued to him on various dates. The order passed u/s 144 is best judgment assessment in absence of return of income filed u/s 139 or failure to comply with the terms of notice issued u/s 142(1). Since the appellant could not explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.25,90,000/- and credit en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
