SHRI RAJUBHAI A DESIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 440/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 November 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without proper reasons and without considering the assessee's evidence. The AO also appeared to have made additions without considering documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to the confirmation of additions made by the AO. The assessee later claimed non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order due to family disputes and residing elsewhere.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence before passing the order. Whether the AO properly considered the evidence while making additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH&

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07/10/2021Pronounced: 17/11/2021

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

1.

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

It appears from the records particularly the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) that in spite of fixing the matter on several occasions the assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application. In that view of the matter the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO.

3.

During the appellate proceeding a notice sought to be served upon the assessee but could not be served. The same was returned to the authorities since the premises were - 2 - Shri Rajubhai A. Desai vs. ITO A.Y. 2014-15 found locked. As regards, service of notice the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that there is some disputes between the family members and the assessee, therefore, residing in a different place and thus notice was not received. Such submissions made by the Ld. CIT(A) seems to be genuine in view of the particular fact that from the records it appears that the assessee made an application 14.03.2019 with a request to the Ld. CIT(A) that he has not received any order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and further asked for the order, if any, passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Thus, admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) passed order without giving any reason not in conformity with the provision of Section 250(6) of the Act.

4.

On the other hand, we find that the Ld. AO considering a written notes of submission filed by the assessee decided the issue against the assessee though factually no document/evidence were seem to have been considered by the Ld. AO while deciding the matter wherein the source of cash deposit in the bank were found to be unexplained by the assessee before the Ld. AO which goes to the root of the matter.

Therefore, considering the entire aspect of the matter we find it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for considering the issue afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also to consider the evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. Assessee’s appeal is therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 17/11/2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →