MR HEMANT MADHUKAR NAIK,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 787/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 2023AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to file all necessary details before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a doctor, failed to provide adequate evidence to the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) regarding certain claims. The assessee contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they were preoccupied and not given sufficient opportunity to submit details.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities and whether the additions made were justified without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari – CA
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR
Hearing: 27/07/2023Pronounced: 27/07/2023

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2018-19 dated 17.05.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, Respected CIT (A) – NFAC erred in confirming the addition made in the assessment order the Ld. Mr.Hemant Madhukar Naik [A] Assessing Officer wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to grant the adequate opportunity of being heard thereby denying the principal of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order may please be set aside and addition confirmed may please be deleted.

2.

On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, Respected CIT (A) - NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal and without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. Hence, the addition made in the assessment order may please be deleted.

3. The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(AR) : 2. In this case, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a Doctor and due to Covid-19 Pandemic, assessee was pre- occupied in his medical profession, hence, could not submit proper reply. The ld.AR submitted that sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee to file the necessary details. He requested that it may kindly be set-aside either to ld.CIT(A) or to the AO for denovo adjudication.

2 Mr.Hemant Madhukar Naik [A]

3.

The ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities.

Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The relevant part of the ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here as under : “5.2 Ground no.1: The AO, in his order of assessment at para 2.5.2, has clearly mentioned that the contribution of the assessee towards Provident Fund was Rs.1,14,719/- but the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.2,52,285/- as contribution to Provident fund in the Profit & loss a/c. For this reason, the AO had disallowed the excess expenditure claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.1,37,566/- (2,52,285 less 1,14,719). The assessee has not submitted any evidence with help of which any conclusion contrary to the finding of the AO can be arrived. Ground no. 1 is therefore, dismissed.

5.3 Ground no. 2, 3 and 4 relates to addition made by the AO u/s 68. I have gone through the order of assessment and find the same to be speaking and well reasoned. I also find that in the given facts and the circumstances of the case as mentioned in the assessment order, the AO has rightfully made the additions u/s 68. The assessee has not submitted any evidence on the basis of which any other conclusion can be arrived. Therefore, all these grounds namely, Ground no. 2, 3 and 4 are dismissed.”

3 Mr.Hemant Madhukar Naik [A]

5.

Thus, it is observed that ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the additions stating that assessee failed to submit necessary evidences. The ld.AR had submitted that necessary details were submitted before the ld.CIT(A). Be it as it may be, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should get one more opportunity to file all the necessary details before the Lower Authorities. Therefore, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication with a request t o give proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →