Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee disclosed income under IDS 2016 but paid only 50% of the tax liability. The Assessing Officer added the unpaid portion of the IDS disclosure (₹32.75 lakhs) and cash deposits (₹1.43 crore) in bank accounts, and disallowed Chapter VI-A deduction, to the returned income under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed these additions ex-parte as the assessee failed to file submissions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative undertook to furnish all details if given an opportunity. Considering the facts, evidences filed in the paper book, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file documentary evidence to substantiate their claim.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-submission of documents were justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to furnish evidence.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 69, 115BBE, Chapter VI-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised 13 grounds in this appeal and mainly challenged the exparte order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and in response to the notice, the assessee filed ITR showing total income of ₹.2,44,490/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A amounting to ₹.1,68,170/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had disclosed income amount to ₹.65,50,000/- in IDS 2016 and the tax liability on this income was ₹.29,47,500/-. However, the assessee deposited only 50% of the tax liability amounting to ₹.14,73,752/-. Thus, the assessee paid tax only on 50% of the income i.e., 32,75,000/- disclosed by him in the IDS 2016 and the assessee has not paid due tax on rest of the income amounting to ₹.32,75,000/- [65,50,000 – 32,75,000]. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to ₹.1,43,99,120/- in his bank accounts during the relevant assessment year. In response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished reply and the contents are reproduced in page 3 of the assessment order. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and by considering the provisions of the IDS 2016, the disclosure of income of ₹.65,50,000/0 in IDS 2016 was added to the returned income of the assessee under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Further, since the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence in support of claim of deduction under Chapter VI- A of ₹.1,68,170/-, the same was added to the returned income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer since the assessee did not furnish any written submission against various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR Shri Pawan Chakrapani, C.A. submits that due to the circumstances beyond assessee’s control, could not file written submission against the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). He placed on record paper book containing 47 pages and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity for furnishing the details before the Assessing Officer and undertook that the assessee is ready to furnish the documentary evidences to substantiate his claim.
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT submits that despite various opportunities afforded, the assessee did not file complete details before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to dismiss the grounds.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also perused the paper book filed by the ld. AR containing 47 pages which includes payment of taxes through Axis Bank, and assessee’s prayer to ld. PCIT for issue of Form 4 under IDS 2016. 4 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not file any written submission/evidences in support of the grounds raised to substantiate his claim or responded to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. AR undertakes that the assessee is ready to furnish all details if this Tribunal afford an opportunity to the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and filing of evidences in the form of paper book as well as in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after verification of documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee and decide the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.