SREENU SIDDAIAH BEJADI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 101/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 March 2023AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. Since the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and the CIT(A) did not provide details of the notices sent, the matter was remanded back.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution as they did not attend or submit written submissions. The assessee claims they did not receive any electronic notices from the CIT(A) under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without ensuring proper service of notice and without adjudicating the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 269T,Section 56(2)(7)(b)(ii),Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 15.03.2023Pronounced: 27.03.2023

Per Amarjit Singh (AM):

The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 19.10.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us:

“1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in upholding the addition made by the assessing officer without appreciating the fact that none of his electronic notices under the New Faceless Assessment Scheme of the Government were reached to the appellant for filing the timely responses who already waited for more than 3 years earlier for hearing to commence under erstwhile physical hearing mode.

2.

The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving the proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant to represent his case and simply dismissing the following grounds before him:

P a g e | 2

4.

The appellant carves to reserve the right to modify, alter, amend or/and add grounds of appeal on proceedings of the case.”

2.

Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,54,000/- was filed on 17.03.2016. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23.08.2016. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 26.12.2017 and total income was determined at Rs.54,15,000/- after making following additions: “(a) Cash credit u/s 68 for amount received from the family member Rs.18,00,000/- (b) Addition u/s 269T of the Act pertaining to trade receivable during the year of Rs.2,25,000/- (b) Addition of Rs.30,36,000/- u/s 56(2)(7)(b)(ii) being different of purchase consideration as per agreement and stamp duty. “

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse for non- prosecution since during the course of appellate proceedings neither the assessee attended nor submitted any written submission.

4.

Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and the same was not adjudicated on merit. In this regard, we have perused the written submission made by the assessee in the statement of facts reporting

P a g e | 3 08.01.2021, 14.09.2021, 11.03.2022 and 07.10.2022 as referred by the ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order. The assessee categorically stated that none of these electronic notice were delivered to him and he was also not aware of these notices. Therefore, no reply and response was made during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The assesse has provided email address on the form no. 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A) as sskcompany@gamil.com. The ld. CIT(A) has not stated in the appellate order the email address on which the notices of hearing were sent. We have perused Sec. 250(6) of the I.T. Act which contemplates that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefore, record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. Even the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter on merit after taking into consideration the material available in the assessment record. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit after providing another fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure and recommunicate the email id in case of the email id reported in the form no. 35 is not correct. Therefore, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2023 (Aby T Varkey) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 27.03.2023 Rohit: PS

P a g e | 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 3. 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →