NATESAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TIRUCHENGODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3159/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 February 2025AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed their orders without giving a proper opportunity to the assessee. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer and granted liberty to submit the relevant details for adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed without affording a proper opportunity of being heard violate principles of natural justice and warrant a remand for fresh consideration. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, for Assessment Year 2011-12, deposited Rs. 10,20,000/- in cash into his savings bank account and also made time deposits. The total cash credits in his bank account were Rs. 25,43,158/-. The assessee did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 148. The assessee neither filed a return nor complied with notices during assessment. The AO passed an ex-parte order, treating Rs. 25,43,158/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) issued notices but received no compliance, and consequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should set aside the order of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, given that the case was not prosecuted before the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) without discussion? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, arguing that the case was not prosecuted before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) confirmed the order without any discussion. Revenue's contention: The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A

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

Pronounced: 20.02.2025

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 2011-12, vide order dated 14.11.2024.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 10,20,000/- in his savings bank account and also made time deposits with City Union Bank Ltd., Pallipalayam Branch, but did not file a return of income for the relevant A.Y. 2011-12. Upon reviewing the entries in the bank statement, it was noticed that the total cash credits in the bank account amounted to Rs. 25,43,158/-. The A.O therefore reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. However, the assessee neither filed a return of income in response to the notice nor complied with the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. The AO, therefore, passed an ex-parte order, treating the entire cash deposits of Rs. 25,43,158/- in the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

1.

On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices from 12.01.2020 to 05.11.2024, but there was no compliance with the notices. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

3.

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.

4.

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

5.

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, 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.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 20th February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →