The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed readjudication on the grounds of unawareness of notice uploaded in e-filing portal on Counsel’s e-mail ID and failure to show explanation on cash deposits in bank and post office.
The assessee had made several cash deposits in UCO Bank, HDFC Bank and Post Office during the Financial Year 2010-11. The proceedings under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated against the assessee online and the case was reopened after recording the reasons.
Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served by Speed Post dated 30.03.2018, and in response, the assessee filed Income Tax Returns on 10.10.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was served online on 01.08.2018. In response, the assessee submitted reply alongwith relevant documents.
During assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits in his other bank account and was asked to explain the source of cash deposits alongwith documentary evidences. The assessee submitted his reply on 15.10.2018 however, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied.
Theassessee never submitted any explanation/documentary proof. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a total sum of Rs.27,25,000/- to the income of the assessee under sections 69A of theIncome Tax Act.
The assessee carried the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Notices under section 250 of the Income Tax Act were issued through ITBA Portal to the assessee, but, the case remained unrepresented and the assessee did not file any written submission/explanation about the nature and source of the cash deposit amounting to Rs.27,25,000/- in the bank accounts and Post Office.
After hearing both the parties, the tribunal observedthat the assessee, due to his advanced age, and being unaware of the notices issued, which were not served on him, but were uploaded on the e-filing portal at the email ID of his earlier counsel who did not make due compliances. Thus, did not appear before the Assessing Officer to provide the explanation on the cash deposits.
The two member bench comprising of A.D. Jain and Vikram Singh Yadav remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
