Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal because the assessee failed to provide supportive documents and explanations regarding unexplained cash deposits, despite multiple notices. The assessee had also failed to comply with the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer were allowed to examine the details and explanations. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, and whether the Assessing Officer issued the notice under Section 147 based on a reason to suspect rather than a reason to believe.
Sections Cited
234A, 234B, 234C, 147, 250, 245
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhoomi Probuild Private Income Tax Officer, Vs. Limited, Ward-1(1)(2), A 402, Sahjanand Shopping Ahmedabad. Centre, Police Commissioner Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. [PAN :AAECB6014 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul K Patel, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26 .06.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
1. Ground 1-On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. Bhoomi Probuild Pvt Ltd. Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 2. Ground 2-On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,64,13,782/- made by the AO on account of cash deposit which was already shown in the balance sheet under the head 'Secured Loans' & 'Unsecured Loans'. 3. Ground 3-On the facts of case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by AO, without considering the reply submitted by the assessee and without considering the merits of the case. 4. Ground 4- On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred on facts on not considering the grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Ground 5-On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned 5 CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order to the assessee is clear violation of principle of natural justice. 6. Ground 6-On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned 6 CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A or 234B or 234C. 7. Ground 7-On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred both in fact and in law by issuing a notice under Section 147 based on a reason to suspect 7 rather than a reason to believe, without possessing any tangible, credible, cogent, and relevant material at the time of issuing the notice. The order was passed solely on the basis of non-complying of notices on time. 8. Ground 8-On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred both in fact and in law by not considering Article 245 of the Constitution of India - limitation of delegated legislation.
3. On going through the record, we find that the notices u/s.250 were issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on 02.07.2019, 21.08.2019, 09.09.2019, 03.10.2019, 14.10.2019, 19.10.2019, 09.11.2019, 18.11.2019 & 23.11.2019, requesting the assessee to submit certain details/clarification/ explanation regarding the source of unexplained cash deposits. Since the assessee failed to submit any supportive Bhoomi Probuild Pvt Ltd. Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– evidence/substantial documents before the Ld.CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. At the time of hearing, we noticed that Ld.AR for the assessee has filed an adjournment application. We also find that the assessee has not even complied before the Assessing Officer. Having gone through the fact, we hold that the no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo and a cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the assessee, the amount should be deposited into “Prime Minister Relief Fund” and the receipt shall be submitted before the JAO, who shall take it on record before passing the order giving effect to the order of the ITAT. The assessee shall submit all the relevant document and bank statement and comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.