NIZAMALI ABDULSUBHAN SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3) NOW WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2217/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-compliance with notices, not on merits. Since the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal was not undertaken, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed the notices were not served properly, and they were unaware of the online system. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on non-compliance of notices without adjudicating on merits? Whether the reassessment and additions were valid as per Section 147 and other relevant sections?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69,Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

Hearing: 18.02.2025Pronounced: 19.02.2025

Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.02.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

(1) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal of assessee on the ground of non compliances of notices in as much as that the said notices were not served to the assessee who is unaware of online system of Income Tax department. (2) The order is also erroneous in law and on facts in as much as that appeal notices were not even mailed on the Email ID mentioned in the appeal memo. (3)The appeal order passed is submitted to be bad in law and on facts without considering the paper book already furnished in as much as that appeal hearing notice was issued by then CIT(A) and written submission along with relevant documents and case laws by way of paper book comprising 80 pages was submitted in his office on 03/06/2019. (4)The learned CIT() has erred in laws and on facts in upholding The reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 addition making of Rs.24,40,900/- being cash deposits in banks is submitted to be bad in law and on facts inasmuch as the conditions envisaged in Section 147 are not satisfied. (5)He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment order is submitted to be bad in law and on facts inasmuch as that cash deposits in the bank cannot be held as income escaping assessment in the absence of other facts justifying reopening. (6) He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of A.O. treating cash deposits on different dates in Bank of Baroda of Rs.4,83,600/- and in Axis Bank aggregating unexplained of Rs.19,57,300/-Rs.24,40,900/-income as from undisclosed sources of the appellant.

(7) He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the said addition without appreciating the facts that the assessee is a small labourer having no taxable income as per facts on record inasmuch as that the word used in Section 69/68 is 'may' and not shall. (8) He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of A.O. for not accepting the explanation of the assessee duly supported by Affidavit of all the persons depositing cash in his account for onward remittance to their native places without any inquiry. (9) On the facts, considering the surrounding circumstances of the appellant, as laid down in the case of Sumati Dayal by the Supreme Court the addition ought to have been deleted by the CIT(A). (10) On the facts of the appellant, no interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C ought to have been levied. (11) The appellant craves, leave to add, to alter and or to modify any grounds of appeal.

3.

On going through the record, we find that the assessee has not complied with the 6 notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) not on merits. Since the primary adjudication of ground of appeal has not been taken up by Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the entire issue on issuance of valid notice to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR.BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad : Dated 19.02.2025 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →