M/S HANUMANT YASHWANT PINGALE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PANVEL, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 888/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 September 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the NFAC's ex-parte decision, while understandable due to the lack of response, was not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file their income tax return and did not respond to multiple notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The AO made additions based on information received and the NFAC also proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC's ex-parte order, passed without addressing the merits due to the assessee's non-response, violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 45,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 Hari Krishan [‘Ld. AR’]
Pronounced: 27/09/2023

द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By the present appeal assessee has challenged the DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053178154(1) dt. 25/05/2023 passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] by National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ‘NFAC’] which in turn ascended out of an order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Act by Income Tax Officer, Ward-(4), Panvel [in short ‘AO’] for assessment year 2017-18 [in short ‘AY’].

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3

Hanumant Yashwant Pingale AY: 2017-18 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; 2.1 The appellant individual assessee failed to file his return of Income for the year under consideration, in whose case information of cash deposit through AIR was received, pursuant to which the case of the assessee was picked for assessment by issue of notice dt. 10/03/2018 u/s 142(1) of the Act.

When various notices issued during the assessment proceedings remained un- responded and summon dt. 21/09/2019 issued on the appellant remained un- attended; the Ld. AO proceeded ex-parte and obtained information from various bankers’ u/s 133(6) of the Act. In the event of appellant’s effective failure to represent and to adduce cogent evidences in support of cash deposits and other banking transactions etc., the Ld. AO culminated the assessment proceedings to the best of his judgement by making additions towards unexplained cash transactions of ₹86,98,795/- u/s 69A of the Act and ₹58,00,000/- towards STCG u/s 45 of the Act and determined the total income of the appellant at ₹1,44,98,800/- by an order framed u/s 144 of the Act.

2.2 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. During first appellate proceedings, the Ld. NFAC provided as much as four opportunities vide notice dt. 16/03/2021, 07/02/2023, 21/04/2023 & 09/05/2023 however same remained unresponded. In absence any response forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. NFAC referring findings of Ld. AO, has culminated its proceedings ex-parte placing reliance on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in ‘CIT Vs B. N. Bhattacharjee reported in [1997] 118 ITR 461 (SC).

ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3

Hanumant Yashwant Pingale AY: 2017-18 2.3 Aggrieved by the aforestated ex-parte adjudication of Ld. FAA, the appellant assessee set-up this case alleging the violation of principle of natural justice in the former to merits thereof.

3.

We have heard rival contentions, perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 and note that, the Ld. NFAC in the absence of cogent evidential material and in the evince of restriction placed by 251(1)(a) of the Act, had to culminate the proceedings ex-parte. This adjudication culminated without touching the merits, however in our considered view is not in consonance with the provision of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. For the reason, without commenting on merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. NFAC 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.

4.

In result, the appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. u/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Wednesday, 27th day of September, 2023.

-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ PUNE; ददनाांक / Dated : 27th day of September, 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. आदेशानुसार / By Order वररष्ठदनजीसदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयन्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →