V.KISHAN,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2089/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 November 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and set aside the order. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a fair hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to prove the source of a Rs. 16 Lakh deposit in his bank account, which the Assessing Officer treated as income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was justified without a proper opportunity of hearing for the assessee before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2089/HYD/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Kishan, Income Tax Officer, NIRMAL Vs Ward-1, [PAN: AIKPV0448B] NIRMAL (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR Date of Hearing : 14-11-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22-11-2019 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee for the AY.2014-15 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–5, Hyderabad, dated 08-05-2018, confirming the addition of Rs.16 Lakhs u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act [Act].

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 115 (One Hundred and Fifteen) days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the assessee was suffering with paralysis and was taking treatment in a hospital and his second daughter was also suffering with liver cancer, due to which there was a delay in filing of the appeal. It was also submitted that delay is due to the reasons beyond the control of assessee and is not intentional. Ld.DR was also heard and I am satisfied with the reasons given for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated as under:

:- 2 -: ITA No. 2089/Hyd/2018

3.

I find that the Assessing Officer (AO) has made addition of Rs.16 Lakhs on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the sources for deposits of Rs.16 Lakhs into his bank account, though the assessee had submitted that it was a token advance of Rs.16 Lakhs from Shri Polishetty Laxman Kumar on 02-12-2013 towards agreement for sale of plot.

3.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO as the assessee did not appear before him. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte the assessee and the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have gone through the order of the CIT(A) and find that the order of Ld.CIT(A) is ex-parte the assessee and has only confirmed the assessment order, holding that the assessee has failed to submit the sources for making deposits to the extent of Rs.16 Lakhs. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the appeal on merits. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing and the assessee also shall file the relevant details before the CIT(A) for early disposal of the appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd November, 2019

Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 22-11-2019 TNMM

:- 3 -: ITA No. 2089/Hyd/2018

Copy to :

1.

V.Kishan, Nirmal. C/o.Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, Flat No.102, Gowri Apts., Urdu Lane, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nirmal.

3.

CIT(Appeals)-5, Hyderabad.

4.

Pr.CIT-5, Hyderabad.

5.

D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.

6.

Guard File.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →