VEERESH BHATI,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 2(5), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1707/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2021AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits but in an ex-parte manner due to the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present his case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessee's case based on AIR information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 14,00,500/- in a joint savings account. The assessee claimed half of the deposit as his share, attributing it to sale proceeds of a car, tractor, yearly income, and past savings. However, no documentary evidence was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly decided the appeal on merits when the assessee failed to appear, and if not, whether the case should be remanded for a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

Hearing: 27.07.2021Pronounced: 27.07.2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1707/Del./2020 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Shri Veeresh Bhati, The Income Tax Officer, Village – Makoda, vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Greater Noida, A-2D, Sector-24, Gautam Budh Nagar. Noida – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. PAN AJEPB1010A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order Dated 30.11.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, relating to the A.Y. 2010-2011.

2.

Despite issue of notice by the Registry, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is 2 ITA.No.1707/Del./2020 Shri Veeresh Bhati, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. being decided on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R.

3.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual. On the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.14,00,500/- in his savings bank account during the F.Y. 2009-2010, the case of the assessee was reopened as per the provisions of Section 147 and notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2017. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.1,53,150/-. Subsequently, the A.O. issued statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1).

3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that he maintained a Joint Bank Account with Shri Sudesh Bhati and out of the total cash deposit of Rs. 14,00,000/- his share was Rs.7,00,000/-. The source of the same was explained to be out of sale proceeds of Indica Car, Tractor-Escorts-35, his yearly income and past savings. In the absence of any documentary evidence

3 ITA.No.1707/Del./2020 Shri Veeresh Bhati, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. filed before him, the A.O. observed that the total deposit in the said Bank Account amounts to Rs.15,00,500/-. The A.O. accordingly made addition of Rs.7,50,250/- being the share of the assessee.

3.2. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) in his ex-parte order, sustained the addition made by the A.O.

4.

Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that A.O. in the instant case made addition of Rs.7,50,250/- being the unexplained cash deposit in the savings bank joint account maintained by the assessee with one Shri Sudesh Bhati. I find due to non- appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) in the ex-parte order passed by him, sustained the addition made by the A.O. I

4 ITA.No.1707/Del./2020 Shri Veeresh Bhati, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. find the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do as per the provisions of Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which reads as under :

“The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”

5.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and Law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and substantiate his case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per Law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

5 ITA.No.1707/Del./2020 Shri Veeresh Bhati, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. 6. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e., on 27.07.2021.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →