KIISTA GOUD IDGI,MEDAK vs. ITO, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 27/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 February 2023AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was levied on the assessee for non-cooperation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made significant additions to the assessee's income, including unexplained cash deposits and investments. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, confirming most of the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after an ex-parte order was passed due to non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA
For Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Hearing: 07/02/2023Pronounced: 08/02/2023

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kista Goud Idgi Vs. Income Tax Officer Medak Ward-1 PAN: AASPI9764P Sangareddy (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR Date of hearing: 07/02/2023 Date of pronouncement: 08/02/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 20-02-2020 of the learned CIT (A)-2, Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2016-17.

2.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the learned CIT (A) in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer and thereafter giving part relief.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 9.5.2016 declaring total income at Rs.3,66,640/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

ITA 27 of 2023 Kista Goud Idgi Medak under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee calling for certain information such as copies of P&L A/c, balance sheet for the year ended 31.3.2016, copies of the Bank A/c statement for the financial year relevant to the A.Y 2016-17 and nature of the cash deposit reflected in the Bank A/c, sources of cash deposits and proof/evidence for the deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the I.T. Act, 1961. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 22.12.2018 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.92,26,000/- wherein he made the following additions: A) Unexplained cash deposit in S.B A/c u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the I.T. Act Rs.83,45,858/- B) Unexplained investment made out of SB A/c u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act – Rs.3,00,026/-. C) Disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VIA of the I.T. Act, 1961 – Rs.1,43,610/- D) Income from other sources being interest in SB A/c – Rs.69,869/-.

4.

In appeal, despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A) for which the learned CIT (A) in the ex-parte order passed by him granted part relief to the assessee and sustained the addition of Rs.71,23,062/- out of the addition of Rs.83,45,858/-, sustained the disallowance of Rs.1,43,610/- made by the Assessing Officer under Chapter VIA and addition of Rs.69,869/- being the addition towards interest on SB A/c made by the Assessing Officer. He, however, deleted the addition of Rs.30,026/- made by the Assessing Officer. Page 2 of 5

ITA 27 of 2023 Kista Goud Idgi Medak

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT (A). He submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case with necessary evidence to the satisfaction of the learned CIT (A). He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.

7.

The learned DR, on the other hand, referring to Page 7 & 8 of the order of the learned CIT (A) drew the attention of the Bench to the continuous non-compliance of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the learned CIT (A) to submit the details. He submitted that under these circumstances, no further opportunity should be granted to the assessee and the appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed.

8.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.92,26,000/- as against the returned income of Rs.3,66,640/- by making various additions as per Para 3 above. We find the learned CIT (A) in the ex-parte order passed by him gave part relief to the assessee and sustained the major additions for which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that although Page 3 of 5

ITA 27 of 2023 Kista Goud Idgi Medak there was non-compliance before the learned CIT(A)-NFAC to the statutory notices issued by his office, however, the same was due to unavoidable circumstances and given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case with evidence to the satisfaction of the learned CIT(A)-NFAC regarding the merit of the case. It is also his submission that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A)-NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. Further, considering the continuous non-compliance of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the office of the learned CIT(A)-NFAC, we levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee for his callous and non-cooperation attitude and the same shall be paid to the PM’s Relief Fund. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the learned CIT (A)-NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the learned CIT (A)-NFAC may pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →