DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-14 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GODREJ PROPERTIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 655/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 August 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent conduct but also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not decide the appeal in its right perspective due to lack of submissions. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,81,920/- on account of unexplained cash deposit. The assessee failed to comply with multiple hearing notices issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), despite requesting adjournments.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal without proper submissions from the assessee, and if a remand is necessary for a just decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, A.R
For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 18.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act has made the addition of Rs.11,81,920/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit has been made. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of issuing several hearing notices the Assessee except requesting for adjournment on 31.10.2022 and 26.09.2023 made no compliance. Thereafter, a full and final opportunity notice was issued to the Assessee on 22.11.2023 which also remained uncomplied with till the passing of the order i.e. on 18.12.2023.

3.

If we consider the conduct of the Assessee then it appears to be negligent and non-complied, however, the Assessee before us has produced one acknowledgment whereby he tried to demonstrate that in response to the last notice dated 22.11.2023 the Assessee has sought for adjournment of hearing, however, the same was not considered by the Ld. Commissioner.

4.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of relevant submissions and documents was unable to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee in its right perspective of the case and for the just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate her claim before the Ld. Commissioner.

5.

We also direct the Assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Hence, the case is remanded accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →