Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file its return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a credit of Rs. 24,86,627 in the assessee's bank account and treated it as undisclosed income under section 69A of the Act as no explanation was provided. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, dismissing the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea and in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and make further submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication, particularly when grounds for adjournment and document retrieval were cited.
Sections Cited
139, 147, 144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K”(SMC
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1070735449(1), dated 28.11.2024 passed against the assessment order by Assessment Officer, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 18.05.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
“(a) The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has dismissed the appeal of the appellant inspite of the fact that proper application for adjournment of hearing and grant of additional time for making the submission was filed (b) The learned NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate the fact that the managing partner had expired, and the other partner were not aware of the tax matters and did not have the required data for submission before the appellate authority (c) The learned NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate the fact that an application had been made to the bank for retrieval of Bank Statement but since the ING Vysya bank had merged with Kotak Mahindra bank, the retrieval of documents by the bank was taking time. (d) The appellant prays that the additions made of Rs. 24,86,627 to the income of the appellant which represent loan repayment and capital contribution of partners be deleted.”
Brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file its return of income u/s.139 for the year under consideration. Ld. Assessing Officer took note of credit of Rs.24,86,627/- in the bank account of the assessee, bearing account No.550011008624 with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and called for explanation in this respect. In absence of any response from the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment by treating the said sum as undisclosed income u/s.69A of the Act. Assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but failed to make any submissions in support of the grounds raised in the said appeal. Accordingly, ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) by giving an assurance that all necessary compliances shall be made, once an opportunity is given to the assessee.
Supreme Traders, AY 2017-18 5. We have perused the orders of the authorities below and taking into consideration, submission made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication of the grounds raised in the first appeal. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so desired. Assessee is also directed to be diligent in attending the hearing proceedings. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.