Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE- & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Venkata Reddy Prabhakar Reddy Kiran, The Deputy No. 1142, 35th C Cross, Commissioner of 26th Main, 4th Block, Income Tax, Jayanagar, Circle – 7(1)(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. PAN: ATJPK0894J APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Ms. Aprichida .K. Marak, Assessee by Advocate : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 12-12-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14-12-2023 ORDER
PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal filed by the assessee against order dated 21.08.2023 DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055268272(1) u/s. 250 of the Act passed by the NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, ("CIT(A)") , under section 250 of the Act insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
2. The authorities below erred in law in passing order ex parte without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing Page and consequently, such orders are liable to be set aside on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay which arose in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that there was reasonable cause for delay which arose in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appellant denies himself to liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 78,31,152/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer is not justified in estimating the business receipts at Rs. 19,26,108/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer is not justified in estimating the business income of the Appellant at Rs. 1,54,089/- being 8% of the estimated business receipts (8% of Rs. 19,26,108/-) on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rate adopted at 8% for estimating the business income is substantially high and ought to be reduced on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 2,67,190/-as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below failed to appreciate that the rigours of section 69C and 69A of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 70,09,873/- as interest income on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought to have given credit of Rs. 7,77,362/- being tax deducted at source while computing the total income of the Appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”
Brief facts of the case are that as per the submission received from Actionable Information Monitoring System (AIMS) of the ITBA maintained by Income tax Department, the assessee had received and made payments but he did not file his return of income and TDS were also deducted on the payments received. Since the receipts and payments were more than threshold limits as Rs. 25,93,299/- which is chargeable to tax is escapement of income. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s. 147 and notice was issued u/s. 148 but the assessee did not respond. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 and duly served upon the assessee. In response the assessee did not file any return of income. Thereafter other statutory notices were issued to the assessee but he did not comply the notices. A further notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 08.02.2022 and delivered to assessee in this response, made reply asking for time for making proper submission and subsequent notices were also issued to the assessee but the assessee did not respond. The assessing officer
Page after issuing various notices completed the assessment u/s. 144 on the basis of materials available before him and made the following additions. “9. Considering the above, total income of the assessee is computed as under: Income declared by assessee/ returned income : Rs. NIL Addition: as discussed in para 5 above : Rs. 1,54,089/- Addition: as discussed in para 6 above : Rs. 2,67,190/- Addition: as discussed in para 7 above : Rs. 70,09,873/- Addition: as discussed in para 8 above : Rs. 4,00,000/- Total assessed income : Rs. 78,31,152/-“
Accordingly, the assessing officer completed the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B.
3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 13.08.2022. The Ld.CIT(A) issued notice for hearing on 04.08.2023 and time was granted to the assessee for submitting reply on or before 10.08.2023. The Ld.CIT(A) has also noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by more than 100 days which was not explained without sufficient reasons. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee and passed the order on 21.08.2023.
Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed the appeal before this Tribunal.
5. The Ld.AR submitted that the notices issued by the assessing officer were during the covid period. Therefore the assessee could not respond the notices issued by the assessing officer. Therefore the assessee had sufficient reason for not complying the notices of the assessing officer. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not get sufficient time to explain the reason for delay in filing of Page Ld.CIT(A) passed order in a hasty manner. She prayed for another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate assessee’s claim before the Ld.AO and she undertook to comply with the notices and file necessary documents in support of the claim.
6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR opposed to providing another opportunity to assessee since the assessee did not comply to the various notices issued by the Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that the assessee did not file return of income in response to notices issued u/s. 148 of the Act. After perusing the material on record, we note that the assessing officer has made addition for want of proper explanation from the assessee. Before the authorities below, the assessee has not presented its case in terms of the notices issued by the lower authorities.
After perusing the material on record, we note that assessing officer has made additions for want of proper explanations from the assessee. Before the authorities below, the assessee has not represented its case in terms of notice issued by the lower authorities. Considering the prayer of the assessee, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. Accordingly we restore the case to the Assessing Officer for de - novo consideration and decision as per law, after reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities with necessary evidence in support of its case and also intimate the correct email-id / communication address and telephone/mobile no. of the assessee to the department. The Page assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th December, 2023.