SHRI DIPAKKUMAR CHUNILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MEHSANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 August 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided another opportunity to the assessee, especially since the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to a change of address. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 to the assessee based on AIR data showing cash deposits of Rs. 10,02,000/-. The assessee did not file a return or offer an explanation. The AO added the amount as undisclosed income under Section 68. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex parte as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without ensuring proper service of notice and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal by the Assessee is preferred against an ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A), Gandhinagar Ahmedabad dated 08.11.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2008- 09.

ITA No. 244/Ahd/2017 2 . A.Y. 2008-09 2. The facts of the case are that the AO noticed from AIR data that appellant had made cash deposits of Rs.10,02,000/-in SB account held with Mehsana Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. On the basis of this information, after recording the reasons for reopening notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO. In response, no return of income is filed by the appellant. A copy of bank account was called for from the Bank by the AO u/s 133(6) along with KYC forms of the appellant. Or. scrutiny of the same, it was found that account of the appellant had been credited with Rs.10,02,000/- in cash for which no explanation was offered by the appellant nor any return has been filed in response to notice u/s 148 issued. After issuing statutory notices, the AO on the basis of data collected from the bank; AO held that the amount of Rs.10,02,000/- represented undisclosed explained income of the appellant and made the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act.

3.

Against the said order, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) issued notice through Speed Post dated 01.07.2016 fixing the date on 12.08.2016 but assessee did not appear. Then again notice was served to the assessee but to no avail. So in these circumstances, ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and confirmed the order passed by the A.O.

4.

Now in appeal is before us.

5.

Ld. A.R. stated that appellant did not receive any of the notices issued by the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) for the reason that there was a change of address as the appellant had shifted from Mehsana to Ahmedabad. The notices were issued by the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) at the old address which were never received by the appellant. The appellant came to know about this from the Assessing Officer upon which immediately the appellant filed a letter dated

ITA No. 244/Ahd/2017 3 . A.Y. 2008-09 27th October, 2016 to the learned C.I.T. (A) and intimated about the new address at Ahmedabad and also requested to give next opportunity of hearing on the new address. But appellant did not receive any communication from the ld.CIT(A). It is pertinent to mention here that ld. CIT(A) passed an order on 8th November 2016.

6.

In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) should have been given one more opportunity to the assessee. Thus, in these circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) to his file to decide appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and appellant is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) and submit all the details to the ld. CIT(A) for speedy disposal of the appeal. However, ld. CIT(A) is also directed to dispose of this appeal within six months from the receipt of this order.

7.

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

Order pronounced in Open Court on 28- 08- 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 28/08/2018 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) – 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →