ABDULRAHIM SATHIK JOHN,SALEM vs. ADIT,NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 79/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 March 2023AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an order for non-prosecution, which is not legally tenable. Therefore, the order was set aside and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order confirming the assessment of a cash deposit of Rs. 40,66,800/- in his savings bank account. The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order for non-prosecution was valid, and if the assessment of cash deposits should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 30.03.2023

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 / 1046323494(1) dated 15.10.2022.

1.

The assessment was completed by the ADIT., NFAC., Delhi, for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order dated 15.09.2021.

2.

The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against order of the CIT(A) confirming action of the Assessing Officer in making assessment of cash deposit of Rs.40,66,800/- in his savings bank account.

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts & circumstances of the case. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer is ex-parte, and even the order of the CIT(A) is for non- prosecution of appeal and there is no finding recorded except the following:-

“There is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of the AO. In view of the fact that there is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of the AO, grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.”

4. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee that despite many notices, the assessee has not represented before the CIT(A), what is alternative with the CIT(A), he could not explain. We noticed that the Assessing Officer has provided five opportunities, but the assessee has not complied with. Even, the CIT(A) has issued various notices and allowed reasonable opportunity to the assessee, but the assessee failed to avail the same. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee, he only pleaded mercy and stated that substantial justice should be done.

5.

The Ld.Sr. DR on this, opposed for setting aside of impugned order, but could not argue that the CIT(A) has passed order on merits.

6.

After going through facts in its entirety, we noticed that the CIT(A) has passed order for non-prosecution, which is not the position in law. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The assessee will file all the details before the Assessing Officer at the first instance and he will represent as and when called for assessment by the Assessing Officer . In term of above, we set aside order and remit the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →