2025 (2) TMI 1883

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....44 of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 [for short 'AY'] is under challenge by the assessee u/s 253(1) of the Act. 2. The case was called twice for hearing; none appeared at the behest of the appellant. After glimpses of issue involved in the present appeal, with the able assistance from respondent we deem it fit to reject the application for adjournment and proceed in the absence of appellant ex-parte u/r 24 of Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 [in short 'ITAT-Rules'] and advanced accordingly. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; 3.1 The assessee is an individual and was identified as Non-Filer. On the basis of information that the assessee deposited huge specified bank notes/cash ['SBN' hereinafter] the transactions of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act out of SBN deposits made. 3.3 Aggrieved only by the addition made u/s 69A the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), which came to be dismissed for the want of evidential documents in support of the claim of the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival submission and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused material placed on record. We note that for the year under consideration, the appellant had deposited total sum of Rs. 15,63,500/- into his HDFC bank account (supra). Of the deposits a sum of Rs. 10,13,500/- were deposited in the form of SBN. The Ld. AO accepted the appellant explanation regarding nature & source of part SBN deposits that it was out of surplus of cash balance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Devi Vs CIT' [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), time of just few days granted to assessee to furnish reply was also held as denial of real opportunity and proceedings were set-side. 6. In view of the aforestated discussion, we are of considered view that, the action of the Ld. NFAC is suffered from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce necessary evidential material in support of his claim. Therefore, placing reliance on Hon'ble High court of Patna judgement in 'St. Paul's Anglo Indian Education Society' (2003) 262 ITR 377 (Pat)', we are mindful to hold that the impugned adjudication is unjustified as the appellant was deprived of reasonable opportunity and time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate his c....