Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to submit details to the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte order under Section 144. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal accepted that there were valid reasons for non-compliance, such as the assessee's personal circumstances and issues with the tax practitioner. The assessment order was set aside for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee had valid reasons for non-compliance with the notices, and if so, whether the assessment order should be set aside for denovo adjudication with admission of additional evidence.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 115BBE, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Dinkar Patil, V The Income Tax Officer, Anil Book Depot, Near New s Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Satara Bridge, Bhusawal, Maharashtra – 425201. PAN: AQHPP5953C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri R.Shirude -AR & Shri Anil Patil(Assessee) Revenue by Shri Prashant B. Gandhale –JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 08/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 12.12.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) In the facts, circumstances & position of law, learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer and passing ex-parte order.
2) In the facts, circumstances & position of law, learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs 9,00,000/- u/s 69A on account of cash deposits during demonetization period. 3) In the facts, circumstances & position of law, learned Assessing Officer erred in estimating gross profit at Rs.9,04,752/- by treating cash deposit of Rs.1,13,09,410/- as sales @8% of cash deposit of Rs.1,13,09,410/-, 4) In the facts, circumstances & position of law, learned CIT(A), NIAC erred in treating the cash deposits during demonetization period as unexplained within the meaning of section 69A & at the same time cash deposits prior to & subsequent to demonetization period treated as business receipts & thereby erred in confirming charging of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE of L.T. Act, 1961. 5) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or substitute to the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Brief facts of the case :
2. In this case, Assessing Officer passed an order under section 144 of the Act, for A.Y.2017-18 as Assessee failed to submit the details. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition as no details were filed by assessee. Aggrieved by the same, Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.
Submission of ld.AR : 3. The ld.AR submitted that assessee Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil is also present for the hearing. Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil submitted that he runs a book shop selling school books. Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil further submitted that he does not understand anything about Income Tax. He had entrusted the work to Chartered Accountant Ms.Seema Prashant Agrawal, Prop. of Agrawal & Associates of Bhusawal. However, the Tax Practitioner failed to comply the notices. The Tax Practitioner provided some email id of her employee. Therefore, no notice was received by him directly. Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil submitted that during this period his mentally retarded son was critically ill. Therefore, he could not follow up with Chartered Accountant. Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil explained that he regularly maintained books of accounts and earned some meager profit. Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil requested that one more opportunity may kindly be provided, so that he will explain all the facts to the Assessing Officer. Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil invited our attention to the Medical Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon which is in the paper book at page no.72. Ld.AR submitted a paper book and he admitted that it is additional evidence. Ld.AR pleaded for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR further submitted that the paper book contains copies of cash book, cash flow statement, copies of bills to demonstrate the business carried by assessee, copy of Audit Report. Ld.AR submitted that these documents are absolutely essential to decide the case of the assessee.
Submission of ld.DR : 4. The ld.DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is a fact that Assessee could not file replies to the notices issued by AO/ld.CIT(A). However, after hearing Mr.Anil Dinkar Patil, we are convinced that there is valid and sufficient reason for non- compliance. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set- aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall file all the necessary details, documents before the Assessing Officer. We admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee, but since we are setting aside the assessment order for denovo adjudication, we direct the Assessee to file all these details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider all the documents, details filed by the assessee before passing the assessment order. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th April, 2025.