SHRI MANGALARAM,PALI vs. ITO, WARD-1, PALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 74/JODH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 August 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld an addition of Rs. 63,60,000/- as unexplained money. The assessee claimed they never received notices from the CIT(A) and thus could not file a reply.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding an addition without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and whether the principle of natural justice was violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary-JCIT-DR
Hearing: 16.08.2023Pronounced: 17.08.2023

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi) emanating from the assessment order under section 143(3) dated 28.12.2018 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)NFAC has grossly erred in violating the principal of faceless appeal as announced for justice of honest taxpayers and the functioning of faceless processing's in honesty and judicially manner and to avoid litigation as created unnecessary by AO.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the validity of order passed by the Ld. AO. Sh. Gopal Goushala

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) NFAC grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 63,60,000/- in respect of cash deposit in bank account as unexplained money.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) NFAC grossly erred in upholding the finding recorded by ld AO without taken to consider material facts as on record.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) NFAC grossly erred in without analyzing the material facts in right prospective and judicious manner and sustained the addition in a hypothetical way which is against principle of natural justice.

6. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.

7. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.”

Submission of Ld. AR 2. Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition only because of alleged non-compliance by the assessee. However, the assessee had never received any notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi). Therefore, assessee could not file reply. Submission of Ld. DR 3. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A). 2 Sh. Gopal Goushala Findings & Analysis 4. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the assessee mainly due to non compliance. In this facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication told CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 17th August, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →