Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed an e-return for AY 2016-17. The case was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(3) to verify income from liquor business. Due to discrepancies in books and non-production of documents, the Assessing Officer assessed a higher income. The CIT(Appeals) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance and non-filing of submissions.
Held
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) file. The tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity of being heard to the assessee to ensure natural justice, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Appearances by: Shri Rajshree Dutta, Advocate and Smt. Saswati Mitra Dutta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. CIT, D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: January 22, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: February 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-12, Mumbai dated 13th March, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17.
Shri Rajashree Dutta, Advocate on behalf of the assessee filed an adjournment petition dated 22.01.2025 with a request to allow (A.Y. 2016-2017) Tridip Das at least one month time to prepare and file the written submission before the Hon’ble Bench. The adjournment petition dated 22nd January, 2025 filed by Shri Rajashree Dutta, Advocate on behalf of the assessee is rejected.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed e-return of income on 09.10.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs.3,25,840/-. The return was duly processed on AST. The case was selected through CASS for the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the issues viz. “whether income from liquor business has been correctly offered for tax”. Subsequently, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and duly served on the assessee. In compliance to the notices, it was found that the assessee derives income during the relevant period from his business under the name and style of M/s. Kanpur C.S. Off & On Shop. It was found that there were so many discrepancies in the books of accounts and records of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice to the assessee to explain with relevant documents like payment voucher/evidence etc. The assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer, and being not satisfied, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs.28,18,759/-.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2016-2017) Tridip Das 5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assesese to substantiate his claim, but the appellant did not file the written submissions and did not represent the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 13th March, 2024.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider the case on merit, rather he just upheld the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs. 28,18,759/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
(A.Y. 2016-2017) Tridip Das 9. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/02/2025.