PRASHANT SURESH KHUTWAD,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 529/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice of hearing from the NFAC was not served on the assessee, preventing them from presenting their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was significantly increased by the Assessing Officer due to additions related to demonetization cash deposits, disallowed salary, petrol, and rental expenses. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirmed these additions without the assessee's response.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of being heard by the NFAC. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 Sarang Gudhate
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Hearing: 23.05.2023Pronounced: 24.05.2023

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 06.03.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Income from other sources”. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 28.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,21,740/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →