RAJKUMAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 35(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1745/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided only one opportunity for hearing and the assessee could not appear due to portal issues. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with a hearing date, allegedly due to technical glitches on the Income Tax portal. The assessee claimed to have made submissions once the issues were resolved, but these were not considered. The CIT(A) also confirmed additions of Rs. 22,89,012/- made by the AO under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to portal glitches without considering the assessee's submissions, and whether the additions under Section 68 were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEShri Vinayak Pandya Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak Pandya
For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Hearing: 26.04.2022Pronounced: 24.05.2022

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 02.08.2021 for the A.Y. 2016-17.

(A.Y. 2016-17) Rajkumar Sharma 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Order dated 02.08.2021 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing the appeal and confirming the arbitrary, unjust and erroneous order of learned Assessing officer (AO) is bad-in-law, arbitrary and unjust which requires to be reversed, cancelled and set aside.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of Hearing scheduled on 24.06.2021. However, learned CIT(A) failed to notice the ongoing glitches on new Income Tax Portal www.incometax.gov.in, owing to which appellant could not comply on the scheduled date. However, as soon as the issues were resolved appellant had made the submission on 22.07.2021. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by dismissing the appeal on 02.08.2021 without considering the Written Submission made by the appellant on 22.07 2021

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred by not considering the appellant's plight owing to Income Tax Portal issues and dismissing the appeal without giving any further opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principle of natural justice.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred law and not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 22,89,012/- made by the Assessing officer by treating it as Unexplained Cash Credits under section 68 of t wo e Tax Act, 1961. Without appreciating the fact that the above amount is per se not a credit in the bank account of appellant, but it is the sum total of Rs. 15 64,012/- (which represents the balance of cash in hand as on 31.03.2015 as per the Balance Sheet filed along with return of income) and Rs. 7,25,000/- (which represents cash withdrawal from Bank account). The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Assessing Officers allegations of treating the above amounts as credits to the bank account of appellant without verifying the material available on records.

5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the ground of appeal disputing the Charging of Interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

(A.Y. 2016-17) Rajkumar Sharma 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and submitted that all the details relating to cash credits, further submitted there is no cash deposits involved in any transaction, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on a single occasion and assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without

(A.Y. 2016-17) Rajkumar Sharma taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →