BHOOP KAUR ANAND,INDIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), INDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1475/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 March 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish replies. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, failed to appear before the AO and CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex-parte order confirming an addition under Section 69A. The assessee claimed non-compliance was due to short stays in India.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming additions for unexplained cash deposits without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: CA Sh. Dhani Ram Sharma, CA
Hearing: 07.03.2023Pronounced: 10.03.2023

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-42, Delhi dated 16.08.2021 for AY 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Impugned assessment addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) in the order u/s 144 is bad in law and on facts of the case for want of jurisdiction the principle of natural justice and various statutory reasons and hence kindly be deleted.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in passing the order ex-parte despite being the adjournment sought. The action so taken is bad in law as well as on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction the principle of natural justice and various statutory reasons and hence kindly be deleted.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming action of the AO in making addition of Rs.1249000 by alleging that cash deposited in the bank account is unexplained money.

The addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal excessive and deserves to be deleted in full.

4.

The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking the provision of sec 115BBE. The action of the AO in invoking the provisions of sec 1115BBE and confirmed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.”

3. The case has been selected for assessment u/s 143(3) under the verification “operation clean money”. The assessee in spite of 6 opportunities given did not attend the AO. The assessee has also failed to attend the ld CIT(A) which led to passing of the order ex- parte confirming the addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. Before us it was submitted that the assessee is a non- resident, British Passport holder and was in India only for a short period of time due to which due compliance could not be made before the revenue authorities and prayed that given an opportunity due compliance would be made before the Revenue authorities. We find that no prejudice would be caused to Revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to furnish replies to the notices issued. Hence, the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The ld CIT(A) would be at liberty to invoke relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act in case of non-compliance to the notices issued to the assessee .

3.

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

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/03/2023.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →