BADAL SANJAY SETHI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1277/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 January 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being defective due to non-receipt of hearing notice. The assessee had also raised an issue regarding an addition of Rs. 3,27,700/- as unexplained credit under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard, and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Shah
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Hearing: 21.01.2019Pronounced: 21.01.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax – (Appeals) – Pune - 5, Pune dated 20.04.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :-

Assessee is an individual and is having income from business activities of Toll Tax Commission from Cantonment Board. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 25.09.2013 declaring

total income of Rs.14,76,030/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for

scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and

on 02.09.2014 and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, assessment

was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.25.02.2016 and the

total income was determined at Rs.18,03,730/-. Aggrieved by the

order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide

order dt.20.04.2018 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO Ward 7(3),

Pune/10544/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by

the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the

following grounds :

“1. The order passed by the Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is passed without giving an opportunity of being heard as the notice for hearing was neither received or accepted by the assessee. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 2. The learned assessing officer erred in facts and circumstances of the case by treating Rs.327700/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act and making addition thereof while concluding the assessment. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect.”

3.

Both the grounds being inter-connected are considered together.

4.

Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that the Ld.CIT(A)

has dismissed the appeal of assessee holding that the appeal is

defective and infructuous on the reason of non-filing of grounds. He

submitted that assessee could not appear before Ld.CIT(A) as he did

not receive notice. He therefore submitted that the matter may be

remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(A). He further undertook that

assessee will cooperate and shall furnish the required details as called

for by the authorities. Ld.D.R. on the other hand, submitted that

notice of hearing was sent to the assessee but it was returned un-

served by the Postal Authorities. He therefore submitted that in such

a situation, Ld.CIT(A) had no other option but to pass dismissal order.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material

on record. In the present case, the addition of Rs.3,27,700/- made by

AO is on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved

by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A). We

find that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee holding that

the appeal is defective and infructuous on the reason of non-filing of

grounds. It is assessee’s submission that notice was not received by

assessee from the office of Ld.CIT(A) and had an opportunity been

given, the assessee would have removed the defects in the appeal.

Before us, it is Ld.A.R.’s prayer that in the interest of justice, assessee

be granted one more opportunity and assessee will co-operate and file

the necessary details. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the

view that in the interests of justice and fair play, the assessee be given

one more opportunity to present his case before Ld.CIT(A). We

therefore remit the issue back to Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on

merits in accordance with law. Needless to state that Ld.CIT(A) shall

grant adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Assessee is

also directed to promptly furnish all the details called for by the

authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to Ld.CIT(A),

we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds of the appeal raised by

the assessee. Thus, the grounds of assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in open Court on 21st day of January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 21st January, 2019. Yamini आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. The PCIT-1, Nashik. 4 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक सद�य” / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Pune; 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy //

व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →