Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Mohammad Choudhary, was subjected to a survey action under Section 133A, admitting an additional income of Rs. 2,19,97,380/-. This amount was reduced to Rs. 40,00,000/- which was offered under PMGKY. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) by adding Rs. 1,79,97,380/- to the taxable income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified as the assessee missed notices and could not appear. The Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte order and remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified and whether the assessee should be provided with another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
133A, 142(1), 143(3), 68, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mohammad Abrar Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Pune. Choudhary, Gat No.692, Kudalwadi Road, Chikhali, Pune- 411062. PAN : AGHPC3905D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “General ground 1. The learned CIT(A), Pune 11 erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,79,97,380/- made by the learned AO to the taxable income of the appellant. Ex-parte Order- Principal of Natural Justice
2. The Appellant contends that appellant, unfortunately, glossed over with the communication from the ITBA portal and that, Appellant is keen to contest the matter on merits. Appellant also contends that, learned AO ought to have granted some more time opportunity for making the written submissions in the interest of natural justice. Grounds on Merits
3. The Appellant contends that, the learned AO erred in law and on facts in taxing cash deposited in bank accounts amounting to Rs. 1,79,97,380/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 11588E without appreciating the fact that, cash deposits were out from collections of cash sales of industrial scrap trading.
Appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify/amend/delete all or any of the grounds of appeal
.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a survey action 133A of the IT Act was carried out at his premises on 27.12.2016. During the survey, the assessee admitted an additional income of Rs.2,19,97,380/- on account of difference of cash in hand and cash deposited in old high denomination notes in the bank. The assessee also stated at the time of survey that the unaccounted cash deposited after 08.11.2016 shall be declared in Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana i.e. PMGKY. Subsequently, assessee furnished application before DDIT stating that after completing the books of accounts the amount of unexplained cash comes to only Rs.40,00,000/- and the same has been offered in PMGKY. The assessee has furnished its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.30,64,150/-. The case was CASS for scrutiny and accordingly notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the total income at Rs.2,10,61,530/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.30,64,150/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained cash credits of Rs.1,79,97,380/- (amount declared at the time of survey at Rs.2,19,97,380/- minus Rs.40,00,000/- declared under PMGKY) u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act.
4. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the assessee missed the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) & therefore could not appear on the date of hearings provided by Ld. CIT(A) which consequently resulted in passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). It was the sole prayer/ request of the counsel of the assessee that at least one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT (A).
Accordingly the counsel of the assessee requested to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) & further requested to direct LD CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal
6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. It was the main prayer of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte i.e. without hearing the appellant and therefore one opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). LD Counsel of the assessee fairly accepted that proper opportunity was allowed to the assessee by LD CIT(A) however in the interest of justice requested to provide one more opportunity. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & also in the interest of justice, without going into merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the mater back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby