SHRI. SURESH GOPAL KADGE,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 35 (3) (4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2386/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 November 2023AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the proceedings were finalized ex-parte at both lower levels and the facts were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing, considering the assessee's health conditions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen suffering from blood cancer, did not file a return of income. The Revenue re-opened the case based on information about share transactions and initiated assessment proceedings. The assessee failed to participate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without examining the facts, and whether the addition made under Section 69 was applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 139,Section 133(6),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI GAGAN GOYALShri Suresh Gopal Kadge

For Appellant: Shri G. P. Mehta, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Virabhandra Mahajan, Ld. DR
Hearing: 18/10/2023Pronounced: 06/11/2023

PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.05.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1 The orders passed by the learned lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts.

1.

2 The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in passing ex-parte orders even though the appellant had fully complied with the notices issued.

3 The notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is ab-initio void for want of compliance of mandatory requirements of law. Consequently the assessment order passed in pursuance of said notice is also void ab-initio.

4 The notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is ab-initio void, in as much as, sanction for issue of notice was not granted by the prescribed authority.

5 Assessment order passed under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is ab-initio void, as much as no reasons were communicated to the appellant prior to completion of the assessment.

6 The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in making/ upholding an addition of Rs. 42, 09,000/- by recourse to section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961, even though said section has no application in appellant's case.

7 The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in not appreciating the details / explanations submitted and have further erred in making impugned addition of Rs. 42,09,000/-.

8 Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law & judicial propositions, impugned addition of Rs. for and untenable in law 42, 09,000/- is wholly uncalled 9 The appellant may please be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground on or before the hearing of appeal.

Shri Suresh Gopal Kadge 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a senior citizen and as per the submissions before us suffering with blood cancer and not in a position to move without help. For the year under consideration assessee has not filed any return of income u/s. 139 of the Act. Revenue received certain information from their i-taxnet system about assessee’s involvement in shares transactions on BSE and NSE amounting to Rs. 36.58 Lacs and 147.07 Lacs respectively. Based on this information, case of the assessee was re-opened vide notice dated: 27.03.2018 u/s. 148 of the Act and assessee was asked to furnish his return of income u/s. 148 of the Act. Assessee failed to file return u/s. 148 of the Act also.

3.

AO collected information from assessee’s broker M/s. Share Khan Ltd. u/s. 133(6) of the Act. As per this information assessee earned speculation profit of Rs. 2, 16,907/- and Short Capital Gains of Rs. 2, 54,216/-. In addition to this assessee invested Rs. 42.09 Lacs in shares as per the ledger of assessee with stock broker. Assessee received salary also from employer amounting to Rs. 6, 50,132/-. Based on these figures AO assessed the income u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at a total figure of Rs. 53, 30,260/-. Assessee being aggrieved with this order of AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the order of AO, as never participated in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A) also. Assessee being further aggrieved and not satisfied with the order of Ld. CIT (A) preferred present appeal before us.

4.

We have gone through the order of AO, order of Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds of appeal raised before us. We observed that at both the stages proceedings finalized on ex-parte basis

Shri Suresh Gopal Kadge and facts of the matter were never examined by the authorities below, which is sine-qua-non for us to adjudicate the matter on facts and law. In view of this, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and matter is restored back to the file of jurisdictional AO for fresh hearing of the matter after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee, keeping in view his health and medical conditions. In the result grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →