SHRI DEVENDRA SWARUPCHAND SHINGAVI,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1039/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 October 2023AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the matter in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires a speaking order with points of determination and reasons. Therefore, the matter was remanded back.

What were the facts?

A search action was conducted on the assessee, leading to additions for unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed rental income. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by providing a speaking order with reasons, or if the ex-parte confirmation without proper adjudication violated principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 147,Section 246A,Section 250,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE

Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr B. C. Malakar & P. C. Patil [‘Ld. AR’]
Pronounced: 17/10/2023

द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by: Mr B. C. Malakar & P. C. Patil [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr Mirtyunjoy Barnwal & Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER BENCH; The assessee’s first four appeals out of the present bunch of six appeals are instituted against consolidated DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1054736423(1), 1054736537(1), 1054736673(1) & 1054736800(1) dt. 31/07/2023 whereas remaining two appeals are filed against DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1054732580(1) & 1054736289(1) both dt. 31/07/2023 passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] by Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals-11, Pune [in short ‘CIT(A)’].

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4

Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi IT(SS) No. 018 to 021 & ITA No. 1039-1040/PUN/2023

2.

Briefly stated common facts of the case are that; 2.1 The appellant assessee is an individual in whose case a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out and consequential assessment proceedings u/s 153A were initiated for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17. The return of income filed pursuant to notice u/s 153A of the Act was subjected to scrutiny and the assessments were completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by making additions towards unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of the Act and undisclosed rental income etc.

2.2 Further pursuant to aforestated search action, the case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reopened and similar additions were also made in the respective assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

2.3 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals against each of the aforestated six assessment years before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with the assessee’s aforestated appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as ten to twelve opportunities commencing from December, 2020 to April, 2023, however the assessee did comply and attend none. In absence of any response forthcoming from the assessee or the written submission in support of grounds raised, the Ld. CIT(A) after reiterating the findings of Ld. AO, has culminated the appellate proceedings ex-parte and confirm the additions by pressing into service the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in ‘CIT Vs B. N. Bhattacharjee reported in [1997] 118 ITR 461 (SC).

ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4

Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi IT(SS) No. 018 to 021 & ITA No. 1039-1040/PUN/2023 2.4 Aggrieved by the aforestated ex-parte adjudication of first appellate forum, the appellant assessee set-up this bunch of six appeals alleging the violation of principle of natural justice in the former to the merits thereof.

3.

We have heard rival contentions, perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963. Ostensibly when the assessee failed to furnish details & explain nature and source of cash deposits and reasons beyond undisclosed rental income, the Ld. AO after according reasonable opportunities to the appellant, added entire amount of cash deposits as undisclosed income alongwith undisclosed rental income and framed the respective assessments orders. Whereas, in an appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions ex-parte for non-prosecution of appeal by the appellant assessee.

4.

Without going into the merits of the case, at the outset we note that, in absence of cogent evidential material, submission and non-compliance by the appellant, in the evince of restriction placed by 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) had to culminate the proceedings ex-parte for non-prosecution. We are heedful to the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act which obligates the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue either by confirming or annulling the addition or reducing or enhancing the addition made by the assessing officer without the right to remand the matter back. However while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) was required to state point of determination, its decision thereon and ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi IT(SS) No. 018 to 021 & ITA No. 1039-1040/PUN/2023 clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Per contra in the instant case, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in line with the order of assessment without adjudicating the matter in terms of sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which in our considered view suffered from former compliance.

5.

This adjudication by the first appellate authority without touching the merits of the case, in our considered view is not in consonance with the provision of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. For the reasons, without commenting on merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to deal therewith de- nova after according not more than three opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act.

6.

In result, these six appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. u/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Tuesday, 17th day of October, 2023.

-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ PUNE; ददनाांक / Dated : 17th day of October, 2023. आदेश की प्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune 4. The CIT(A), / NFAC Delhi 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘A’, Pune 6.गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. (3:3) आदेशानुसार / By Order वररष्ठदनजीसदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयन्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →