NITRANGAN SINGH GWAL,CHUNAR MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3 (2), MIRZAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6/ALLD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 December 2024AY 2011-20124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea of ignorance regarding the deposit's source and allegations of fraudulent activity. Giving the benefit of doubt, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department initiated proceedings under Section 147 due to a large cash deposit in the assessee's bank account. The assessee failed to comply with notices from both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to prove the bona fides of his claim when he has not complied with notices from the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Hearing: 02.12.2024Pronounced: 02.12.2024

O R D E R

PER SH. SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal arising from an order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC (hereinafter the ld. ‘CIT(A) vide order dated 16.11.2023. It is seen that proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on account of a cash deposit of Rs.4542005/- in a savings bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Limited, Mirzapur during F.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2018 was issued. It is seen from the record that the proceedings before the ld. AO were conducted in an ex parte manner since the assessee, for reasons best known to him, did not comply with any of the notices issued by the ld. AO from time to time.

A.Y. 2011-12 Nitrangan Singh Gwal 1.1 On the last date of hearing, the ld. DR filed an application for adjournment. This application for adjournment has been rejected since this matter was adjudicable on the basis of material on record.

2.

Before the ld. CIT(A) also, the appellant did not make any compliance to the notices fixing the case for hearing. It is recorded in para 4.1, as to the number of efforts made by the office of ld. CIT(A) to fix the case for hearing and how there was no response from the side of the assessee. Before us, the appellant has filed a short paper book in which it is seen that there is an affidavit in which the assessee has pleaded ignorance about the source of the said deposit as under:-

A.Y. 2011-12 Nitrangan Singh Gwal

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →