Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee, a registered society running educational institutions, filed its return of income. However, the assessment order noted huge deposits and the case was reopened under Section 147, leading to an addition for unexplained cash deposits. The Assessee failed to provide substantiating evidence before the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the Assessee failed to substantiate its claim before the lower authorities and did not deserve leniency, the issue needed proper adjudication. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication despite the Assessee's failure to provide evidence before lower authorities and whether conditions should be imposed for such remand.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH “A”, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15.
In this case, the Assessee being a registered society running educational institutions under the name of “Vasavi Vidya Kendra” and during the assessment year under consideration filed its return of income on dated 31.03.2015 in manual form as claimed. Whereas it appears from the assessment order dated 26.03.2022 that though the Assessee has made huge deposits, however, has not filed any return of income for the assessment year under consideration and thus the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice dated 26.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act which ultimately resulted into making the addition of Rs.1,35,32,693/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits being unexplained Assessing Officer (AO).
The Assessee though challenged the said addition and reopening of the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, as it appears from the impugned order, despite of affording various opportunities the Assessee except seeking adjournments which were also granted to the Assessee by the Ld. Commissioner, eventually made no compliance and/or except filing statement of facts, filed no evidence in support of its claim and therefore in the constrained circumstances as the Assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence, the Ld. Commissioner justified the re- assessment proceedings as validly initiated and the addition made by the AO.
The Assessee being aggrieved has preferred this appeal and contradicted the impugned order and alternatively prayed for remitting of this case to the file of Ld. Commissioner.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and alternatively claimed that if in any case, the case is to be remanded then the same should be subjected to imposition of heavy cot of Rs. 1,00,000/- at least.
Having heard the parties and giving thoughtful consideration to rival claims of the parties and orders passed by the Authorities below, we observe as it appears from impugned order that the Assessee though before the Ld. Commissioner requested for filing of some additional evidences, however, no such evidence and any application for filing additional evidence was filed. As the Ld. Commissioner has given sufficient opportunities to the Assessee to substantiate its claim, however, the Assessee failed to substantiate its claim and therefore the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal filed by the Assessee as ex-parte and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency, however, it is a fact that the issue involved before the Ld. Commissioner also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant documents/evidence and submissions and thus considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for just and proper decision of the case, equitable relief, fair play and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.21,000/- in the Revenue Department under the “other heads” within 15 days of the order.
We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions and documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. We also clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in aforesaid terms.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2025.