MANOHAR KHATWANI,BALAGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 24/JAB/2023 (A.Y: 2017-18) ManoharKhatwani, Vs. ITO,Ward Apsara Agencies, Balaghat Railway GujriChouk, station Road, Balaghat-481001, Balaghat-481001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. PAN/GIR No. : AETPK6715K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondentby : Shri.ShivKumar.Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /CIT(A) and passed the order u/sec144 and Sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to apply principal of natural Justice 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to appellant.
ITA No24/Jab/2023 ManoharKhatwani . - 2 -
That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has made addition of Cash deposited into bank accounts during the year of Rs. 43,96,530/- on account of unexplained income U/s 69A of income tax act 1961 which is bad in law and required to be deleted in full.
That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred by not considering written submission submitted on 19/12/2022 against the notice issued on 09/12/2022 which is bad in law and required to be deleted in full.
5.That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) completely failed to look into the records available with him in the form of online cash compliance as made by the assesse on 20/03/2017 as the same query was asked by the assesse and he had already explained the source of cash deposit and made the addition U/s 69A as unexplained source which is bad in law.
6.That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not consider the adjournment filed on 02/12/2022 against notice on issued under section 250 on 21/11/2022.
7.In the facts circumstance of the case the order is to be declared as NULL and VOID.
That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in passing the order under U/s 250 of Income Tax Act 1961 and same is bad in law and null and void.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 and the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 43,96,530/- in the bank accounts in F.Y.2016-17 and the
ITA No24/Jab/2023 ManoharKhatwani . - 3 -
return of income was not filed and there is no compliance to notice issued U/sec142(1) of the Act and sources for the cash deposits in the bank accounts remains un explained. Hence the AO has invoked the provisions of Sec. 144 of the Act and made best judgment assessment considering the material available on record and find that the assessee has deposited cash deposits of Rs. 21,67,000/- in Bank of Maharashtra and Rs. 22,29,530/- In Union Bank of India both aggregating to Rs. 43,96,530/-. Since there are no explanations were filed in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Finally the AO made addition U/sec69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.43,96,530/- and passed the order u/s 144 of the Act dated 25.09.2019.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
ITA No24/Jab/2023 ManoharKhatwani . - 4 -
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no appearance/submissions in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing on various dates referred at Page 4 Para 4 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions of the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the
ITA No24/Jab/2023 ManoharKhatwani . - 5 -
CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh subject to the payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the Income Tax Department within two months from the date of receipt of the order by the assesse. Further the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Orders pronounced in the open court on 20.09.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Jabalpur, Dated 20.09.2023
KRK, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT (Judicial) 4. The PCIT DR, ITAT, Jabalpur 5. Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//
ITA No24/Jab/2023 ManoharKhatwani . - 6 -
( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Jabalpur
