DINESH KUMAR LAHOTI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1777/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 October 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-appearance. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by both the AO and the CIT(A). The AO had made an addition of Rs. 99,02,613/- under Section 69A for cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-appearance without considering the merits, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 08.10.2018Pronounced: 12.10.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1777/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar Lahoti, Vs. ITO, Hyderabad. Ward-8(2), PAN: AAZPL 8609 H Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 08.10.2018 Date of pronouncement: 12.10.2018 ORDER PER Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: This is assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 filed against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad dated 31.07.2017. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-appearance on the given date of hearing. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not have upheld the addition made by the A.O. u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 of an amount of Rs. 99,02,613/- being the entire amount of cash de3posited in the savings bank account for the year under review. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the entire amount of cash of Rs. 99,02,613/- deposited in the bank as income ignoring the basic fact that only income element needs to be taxed.”

2.

Further, assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have treated the amount of Rs. 99,02,613/- being the entire amount of cash deposited in the savings bank account for the year under review as difference in turnover / gross receipts as shown in ITR and deposits into the bank. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the profit margin @ 8% of the above said amount in the absence of maintenance of proper books of account instead of treating the entire amount as income u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.”

3.

During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that though the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, it was an ex-parte order without giving the assessee any opportunity of submitting the explanation for the sources of cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account. He further submitted that even before the CIT(A), the assessee had not been given sufficient opportunity of representation. He pointed out that the CIT(A) had given only two dates of hearing of the case and has dismissed the appeal for non-appearance, without discussing anything on the merits. He also referred to the paper book filed before us to submit that all these documents filed therein are necessary for disposal of the assessee’s appeal. He therefore, prayed that the issue may be remitted for re-consideration of the issue on merits.

4.

Learned Departmental Representative was also heard.

5.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the A.O. as well as the CIT(A) have passed the order ex-parte. Before the CIT(A), the case was first posted for hearing on 19.06.2017 and secondly on 31.07.2017, on which

date the final order was passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, we are satisfied that the assessee has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further, assessee has also filed paper book containing documents pertaining to the present appeal which needs verification. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the A.O to consider the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds of appeal and the additional grounds raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 12th October, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: October, 2018 OKK Copy to:- 1) Y.V. Bhanu Narayana Rao, Chartered Account, 10-2-195, Opp. Deccan Club, East Maredpally, Secunderabad – 500026. 2) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-2, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →