RAJU SHANTHI,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3161/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without giving the assessee a proper opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for denovo adjudication to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash during demonetization but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order assessing the total income. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities provided adequate opportunity to the assessee before passing ex-parte orders, and if not, whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 18.02.2025Pronounced: 21.02.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, A.M: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 29.01.2024.

2.

There is a delay of 256 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons that the delay was primarily caused due to a real-time alert, which prevented timely action on the matter. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.25,00,000/- during demonetization period in his/her saving bank account maintained with State Bank of India, but has not filed return of income for the relevant A.Y. The AO therefore, issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 28.11.2017 calling for return of income.

1.

However, the assessee neither filed return of income in response to notice nor complied with notices issued during assessment proceeding. The A.O therefore passed ex-parte order u/s. 144 of the Act dated 26.09.2019 taking entire cash deposits made into his/her bank account assessing total income of Rs.25,16,872/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has issued various notices, but there was no compliances to the notices and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by the order dated 29.01.2024.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, since the case was not prosecuted before the Assessing Officer and the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any discussion.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the impugned order.

6.

We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the lower authorities below. It is noted that the AO and that of the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice by providing one more opportunity to the assessee, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the AO and at liberty to submit the relevant details before the AO for adjudication of the case.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →