INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHAWANIPATNA vs. RAJESH HANS, KHARIAR ROAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 355/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 September 2024AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any perversity or error in the facts recorded. The Tribunal noted that it is the AO's duty to respond to communications from appellate authorities.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 3,40,35,866/-. The appeal was filed 18 days late, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The Revenue's main contention was that the CIT(A) relied on a bank certificate without verifying its authenticity or giving the AO an opportunity to respond.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition based on a bank certificate without proper verification and without giving the AO an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Partha Nayak, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Hearing: 23/9/202Pronounced: 23/9/20

This is an appeal filed by the revenue an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 13.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2017 13.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10226415 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

Shri Partha Nayak, Partha Nayak, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 4

3.

The appeal filed by the revenue is time barred by18 days. The revenue has filed condonation petition stating the reason that although the order of the ld CIT(A) dated 13.6.2024 was communicated through e-mail, which was overlooked inadvertently resulting delay of 18 days in filing of second appeal. It was requested to condone the delay. On consideration of the petition, we are satisfied that the reason given in the petition has not been found to be false. Hence, we condone the delay of 18 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

Grounds of appeal raised are as under:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AOP under the head unexplained money of Rs. 3,40,35,866/- without appreciating the fact that though the assessee has deposited huge cash in to his bank account during the year under consideration, but he has not filed the Return of Income. Further, the assessee9 has neither furnished the details of the customers/account holder of Central Bank Of India along with supporting documentary evidences from whom such amount was collected and deposited into his bank account during the course of assessment proceeding nor during the appeal proceeding.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law , the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head unexplained money of Rs.3,40,35,866/- solely relying upon the certificate issued by the Central Bank Of India, which was issued on 13.03.2024 i.e after passing the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144B off the Act deted 14.03.2023. Further, the copy of the said certificate was submitted by the assessee and accordingly it is required to examine the authenticity/veracity of the said certificate, which has not been verified the appeal proceeding. Also, the Ld. CIT(A) did not ask the JAO through remand report regarding the genuineness of the said certificate.

P a g e 2 | 4

3. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend one or more grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard.”

5. We have considered the rival submissions. The sole ground of the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) did not ask for remand report or give an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to represent the case regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Central Bank of India. When notice of hearing is issued to the assessee, the same has also to be issued to the Assessing Officer. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to reply to the communication from the appellate authorities. The fact clearly shows that the service rendered by the assessee as a bank Mitra on behalf of Cen tral Bank of India. It is only after considering the facts that the ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue and deleted the addition. The revenue has not been able to produce anything to show that the facts as recorded by the ld CIT(A) is perverse or erroneous. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld CIT(A), which is hereby upheld.

6.

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/9/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →