Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
ORDER \nPER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:\nThis appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre\n(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 14-10-2024, which\nupheld the assessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s.147 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Assessing\nOfficer, Ward-5, Nadiad [hereinafter referred to as “AO"], for Assessment\nYear (AY) 2012-13.\nITA No.1947/Ahd/2024\nShyam Chelaramji Rangwani vs. The ITO\nAsst. Year: 2012-13\n2\nFacts of the case:\n2. The case was reopened based on information received from ACIT,\nCircle-2(4), Ahmedabad, indicating that the assessee had allegedly invested\nRs.93,00,000/- in Tower B/303, Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad during A.Y.\n2012-13. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2019, which\nwas served on the assessee under PAN: ABQPR2834L. The assessee,\nhowever, contended that this PAN was not known to him and that he had\nalways filed his income tax returns under PAN: AIVPR8944H.\n3. As per the AO's findings, the alleged investment consisted of\nRs.21,00,000/- paid via cheque and Rs.72,00,000/- paid in cash. The total\nconsideration was Rs.93,00,000/-, and the AO sought an explanation for the\nsource of the investment.\n3.
The AO issued multiple notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on\n13.05.2019, 09.08.2019, and 28.08.2019, which were duly served on the\nassessee. However, the assessee failed to file a reply or furnish any\nsupporting documents.\n3.
The assessee submitted a written response on 11.10.2019, wherein he\ndenied knowledge of PAN: ABQPR2834L and stated that he had been filing\nreturns under PAN: AIVPR8944H since A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee claimed\nthat he had not received any notice under Section 148 on the correct PAN.\nThe AO found this explanation unsatisfactory, stating that department\nrecords clearly showed that the assessee held two PANs: ABQPR2834L and\nAIVPR8944H. A show-cause notice was issued on 06.12.2019, asking the\n Chelaramji Rangwani vs. The ITO\nAsst. Year: 2012-13\n3\nassessee to explain why the investment should not be treated as unexplained\nunder Section 69A of the Act. Since the assessee failed to respond to the show\ncause notice, the AO made an addition of Rs.93,00,000/- under Section 69A\nof the Act as unexplained investment and completed the assessment ex-parte\nunder Section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act on 12.12.2019.\n4. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A), Vadodara, raising the\ngrounds that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served, as it was\nissued under wrong PAN (ABQPR2834L) and the AO failed to fulfil the\nconditions under Section 147 of the Act, making the reassessment invalid.\nThe assessee also argued that the investment was actually recorded in A.Y. 2014-\n15, not A.Y. 2012-13, and the flat booking was cancelled on 14.12.2015. The\nassessee further argued that the AO ignored key documentary evidence\nsubmitted during assessment. The assessee argued that the entire\nreassessment under PAN: ABQPR2834L was invalid, as the correct PAN was\nAIVPR8944H.\n4.
1. The CIT(A) issued a notice on 25.01.2021, asking the assessee to furnish\nwritten submissions by 09.02.2021. However, the assessee did not respond to\nthis notice. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, without\nadjudicating the grounds on merits. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents\nthat permit dismissal for non-prosecution, including CIT vs. B.N.\nBhattacharjee & Others (1970) 10 CTR 354 (SC) and CIT vs. Multiplan India\nPvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT.\n5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us\nwith following grounds of appeal:\n Chelaramji Rangwani vs. The ITO\nAsst. Year: 2012-13\n4\n1. Notice issued u/s.148 dated 30.03.2019 and order passed u/s.144 r.W.S. 147 dated\n12.12.2019 along with the demand notice issued u/s.156 are bad in law for want of\nvalid service of notice issued u/s.148.\n2. Notice issued u/s.148 dated 30.03.2019 and order passed u/s.144 r.W.S. 147 dated\n12.12.2019 along with the demand notice issued u/s.156 are bad in law as the notice\nu/s.148 was issued without fulfilling the condition precedent u/s.147 r.w.s.148 of\nthe Act and without acquiring valid jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148.\n3. The Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the\nappellant for non-prosecution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.93,00,000/-\nmade by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A on PAN: ABQPR2834L vide order dated\n12.12.2019 without appreciating facts and law of the case properly.\n4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of\nhearing, if need arise.\n6. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative\n(AR) of the assessee argued that CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order and\ndismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the facts and\nlegal contentions. The AR also stated that a separate appeal under the correct\nPAN (AIVPR8944H) is still pending before CIT(A), which requires\nadjudication. The AR placed on record the copy of Form No.35 of the appeal\nfiled under PAN: AIVPR 8944 H (Acknowledgement No.290205300100120).\n7. The Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, submitted\nthat the assessee did not appear before CIT(A) despite being given multiple\nopportunities. However, the DR also acknowledged that CIT(A) did not pass\na speaking order addressing the merits of the case. Considering these facts,\nthe DR agreed that, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded\nback to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.\nITA No.1947/Ahd/2024\nShyam Chelaramji Rangwani vs. The ITO\nAsst. Year: 2012-13\n5\n8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the\nassessment order and the order of CIT(A), and examined the material on\nrecord. It is observed that the original assessment order was passed under\nPAN ABQPR2834L, whereas the order of CIT(A) was passed under PAN\nAIVPR8944H. Further, the assessee had filed Form 35 for the appeal against\nPAN ABQPR2834L, but the verification was done using PAN AIVPR8944H\nthrough Aadhaar OTP. This raises a serious concern regarding procedural\nlapses in the appellate proceedings. If the appeal was filed under one PAN\nbut verified using another PAN-linked Aadhaar, how was it processed and\nentertained without addressing this inconsistency? Such a fundamental\nmismatch in PAN details should have been flagged by the system or\nreviewed by CIT(A) before proceeding with adjudication. The failure to do\nso indicates a lack of proper verification at the appellate stage, which may\nhave significant jurisdictional implications.\n8.
1. We further observe that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-\nprosecution without passing a speaking order, thereby failing to adjudicate\nthe grounds raised by the assessee on merits. It is a settled legal principle\nthat CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, is required to pass a reasoned\nand speaking order even in the absence of the assessee's appearance. The\nfailure to do so amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The\nDepartmental Representative (DR), while contending that the assessee did\nnot appear before CIT(A) despite being given multiple opportunities, also\nconceded that CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order addressing the merits of\n==End of OCR for page 7==\n Chelaramji Rangwani vs. The ITO\nAsst. Year: 2012-13\n6\nthe case. Considering these facts, the DR agreed that, in the interest of justice,\nthe matter should be remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.\n8.
2. We also express our concern as to how such a fundamental discrepancy\nregarding the PAN could remain unaddressed at the appellate stage. The\nappellate authority, while examining the appeal, is expected to verify the\ncorrectness of the PAN and other jurisdictional aspects before proceeding to\nadjudicate the matter. The fact that the appeal was disposed of under a\ndifferent PAN without addressing this issue reflects a lack of due diligence at\nthe CIT(A) level. Such an oversight can lead to serious consequences,\nincluding conflicting orders for the same assessee under different PANs,\ncreating unnecessary litigation and hardship. CIT(A) is expected to exercise\ngreater caution and diligence while handling cases, particularly where\njurisdictional issues are involved.\n8.
3. In light of the above observations, we deem it appropriate to set aside\nthe order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to first\ndetermine the correct PAN of the assessee and take necessary steps for de-\nduplication of PANs. Further, both appeals – one under PAN ABQPR2834L\nand the other under PAN AIVPR8944H-shall be heard together and\ndisposed of jointly to avoid conflicting decisions. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the\nappeal on merits and pass a speaking order dealing with the validity of the\nnotice under Section 148, the correctness of the assessment year in which the\ninvestment is taxed, and the applicability of Section 69A based on the facts\nand evidence submitted by the assessee. The assessee is directed to fully\ncooperate in the proceedings and furnish all supporting documents, and\nCIT(A) shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties efore\npassing the final order.\n9. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes.\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 18th February, 2025 at Ahmedabad.\nSd/-\n(SUCHITRA KAMBLE)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nSd/-\n(MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nअहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, दिनांक/Dated 18/02/2025\nटी. सी. नायर, व.नि. स. / T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS\nआदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/