BIRANCHI NARAYAN MISHRA,KHORDHA vs. ITO, KHORDHA WARD, KHORDHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 350/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 January 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted an exercise to determine the peak credit of cash deposits, which was a crucial aspect of the assessment. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this determination.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed against assessment orders passed under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessment years. The primary contention was that the assessments were made without adhering to principles of natural justice and proper opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessments made under Section 144/147 were valid without proper opportunity to the assessee and whether additions under Section 68 were justified without considering peak credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: SHRI

For Appellant: Shri B.,V.R.Swamy
For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Pronounced: 09/01

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER to 321 & 350/CTK/201 /CTK/2019 Assessment Year Assessment Years :2012-13, 2013-14, 2015 14, 2015-16 & 2014-15 Biranchi Narayan Mishra, House Biranchi Narayan Mishra, House Vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, ITO, Khurda Ward, No.39, Trahi Achyuta Nagar, No.39, Trahi Achyuta Nagar, Khurda Via: Balakati, Dist: Khurda Via: Balakati, Dist: Khurda PAN/GIR No. No.ANCPM 1672 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.,V.R.Swamy B.,V.R.Swamy, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 09 /01/ 20 / 2020 Date of Pronouncement : 09/01 01/2020 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the CIT(A) of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 25.7.2019 for the assessment years 1, Bhubaneswar dated 25.7.2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013 13 & 2013-14, order dated 26.7.2019 for the assessment year 2015 14, order dated 26.7.2019 for the assessment year 2015- 16, and order dated 11.9.2019 for the assessment year 2014 16, and order dated 11.9.2019 for the assessment year 2014 16, and order dated 11.9.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15, respectively, in the matter of assessment under section 144/147 of the Act. respectively, in the matter of assessment under section 144/147 of the Act. respectively, in the matter of assessment under section 144/147 of the Act.

2.

The effective ground taken in all these appe 2. The effective ground taken in all these appeals is that the order under als is that the order under section 144/147 of the Act is erroneous and unjustified as the orders have section 144/147 of the Act is erroneous and unjustified as the orders have section 144/147 of the Act is erroneous and unjustified as the orders have been passed against the principles of natural justice. been passed against the principles of natural justice.

3.

At the time of hearing, Id counsel for the assessee submitted that 3. At the time of hearing, Id counsel for the assessee submitted that 3. At the time of hearing, Id counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment in all the assessment in all these years have been completed under section these years have been completed under section P a g e 1 | 3 ITA Nos.319 to 321 & 350/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14,2015-16 & 2014-15 144/147 of the Act without allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld counsel submitted that since the assessee has not maintained books of account, therefore, cash deposited into the bank account do not represent the credit found in the books of account of the assessee and, therefore, no addition could be made under section 68 of the Act, He submitted that the deposits in the bank account cannot be the sole basis for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, for holding that income has escaped assessment. Ld counsel further submitted that the addition cannot be made in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that, if at all any addition is required to be made, then the peak amount can be added to the income of the assessee.

4.

Replying to above, Id DR submitted that when the assessee has not disclosed the accounts of the assessee then the entire income has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. However, in all fairness, Id D.R. submitted that the case may be restored to the file of the AO for allowing the assessee to explain the source of cash credit and determination of peak credit to be added to the income of the assessee.

5.

On careful consideration of rival submissions, first of all, I may point out that the assessment in all these years have been completed under section 144/147 of the Act. The contention of Id A.R. before the Tribunal that if at all any addition is required to be made that would be the peak credit. On perusal of the assessment order, I observe that no such exercise P a g e 2 | 3 to 321 & 350/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14,2015-16 & 2014-15 has been conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding computation of peak credit. We find that this issue, in any case, is to be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to determine the peak credit claimed by the assessee and the assessee is directed to give peak computation of these transactions. In case, assessee will not provide information on peak credits the AO will verify and frame assessment accordingly and recalculated the taxable income of the assessee accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9 /01/2020.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →