SHRI POONARAM JITAJI CHOUDHARY,PANVEL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APEEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 303/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2023AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as the time granted for compliance was less than one week in each notice. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was assessed ex parte after the AO received information about a loan. The AO added Rs. 31.5 lakh as unexplained income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the ex parte assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri H.G. Sharma

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed by the assessee on 29.03.2014 declaring income of Rs.4,10,590/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer on receipt of the information that the appellant had taken loan of Rs.3.5 crore from Aasharamji Ashram, Motera, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, out of which a sum of Rs.31.5 lakh was repaid in cash during the previous year relevant to the year under consideration, had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Against the same, the AO completed the assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Act after making addition of Rs.31.5 lakh treating the said sum as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved with the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. Before the CIT(A), the assessee took a plea that the AO passed the ex parte order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. However, the CIT(A) has rejected the plea of the assessee on the ground that despite giving numerous opportunities, the appellant chosen not to file any written submissions or details, accordingly confirmed the action of AO.

4.

I had carefully gone through the assessment order as well as the order of CIT(A). In para 5 of the assessment order, the AO had set out the dates of hearing u/s 143(2) of the Act and the dates given for compliance of the said notices. On mere perusal of para 5 of the assessment order, it would clearly reveal that the AO had not given reasonable opportunity as in each hearing notice, the time granted to respond the notice was less than one week, which is unreasonable. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the AO had not granted a reasonable opportunity to represent the matter before the AO and therefore, the matter is restored to the file of AO with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after affording the opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2023.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →