SYED SHAFIUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/HYD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 June 2022AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunities to represent his case and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, had cash deposits of Rs. 11.00 lakhs during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 69A due to non-compliance and lack of explanation from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities and whether the appeal was decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad SMC Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri R. K. PANDA

Hearing: 22/06/2022Pronounced: 23/06/2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 31.3.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad relating to A.Y 2017-18.

2.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned CIT (A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.11.00 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposit in the Bank A/c during the demonetization period.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a non-resident and filed his return of income on 30.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,87,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected under the CASS to examine the issue of “Large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 22.9.2018 and e-proceedings were initiated. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act was also issued to the assessee for submission of the information such as Bank A/c, entry-wise details of cash deposits made in the Bank A/ during demonetization period, note on business activities including the nature of business and furnishing proof of agricultural activities. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11.00 lakhs u/s 69A of the I.T. Act.

4.

Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT (A) despite number of opportunities granted, the learned CIT (A) in his ex-parte order sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity to represent his case at the time of assessment proceedings as well as appeal proceedings. Further, the learned CIT (A) while dismissing the appeal has not decided the appeal on merit and has summarily dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the lower authorities.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →