Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, failed to respond to notices issued under Section 148 and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 19,80,000/- as unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. Considering that the assessee had provided details and the previous non-compliance was due to an income tax practitioner's fault, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment order and confirmation by CIT(A) are valid when the assessee provides evidence of agricultural income and attributes non-compliance to a tax practitioner's error.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 69A, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar
आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A), Panaji, in proceeding u/s. 250 vide order dated 28/02/2024 passed for the assessment year 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:-
1. 1. In law, the impugned assessment order passes by the ld.AO which was later on confirmed ex-parte by the Hon 'ble CIT(A) is bad in law and deserved to be cancelled. The impugned assessment order may kindly be annulled.
2. That, on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,77,850/- made by ld. AO as unexplained money as the appellant is an agriculturist and the cash was deposited from agricultural income.
3. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.”
3. The assessee is an individual and as per the information available with the Revenue Department, it was found that the assessee made cash deposits to Rs. 15,95,000/- in bank account maintained with State Bank of India during financial year 2011-12. The assessee did not file return of income for financial year 2011-12. The case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act, 1961 dated 29-03-2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed income tax return for the year under consideration on 05-04- 2019 declaring total income at Rs. 58,00,480/-. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 21-06-2019 and reasons were supplied prior to the same. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued but the same was not responded. The assessee was accorded final opportunity vide show cause notice dated 21-10-2019 to substantiate deposits made in the bank account but the assessee has not responded the same and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,80,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is an illiterate agriculturist having only agricultural income and no other income which was subjected to taxation. The assessee is not aware about the intricacies of the income tax law and has handed over the notice issued u/s. 148 to local Income Tax Professional to look into the matter. The assessee was under impression that since such income tax professional has a technical knowledge will take corrective steps but the assessee received appellate order dismissing his appeal of non-compliance while staying with his son in USA. Thus, non- appearance before the revenue authorities as well as before the CIT(A) was not deliberate but due to the fault on behalf of the earlier income tax practitioner. The ld. A.R. submitted that both the orders are ex-parte but the assessee has filed the details related to bank statement regarding withdrawal and cash deposits as well as 7/12 extracts along with details for agricultural income. The ld. A.R. requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.
The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not taken the precautionary measure while presenting his case before revenue authorities as well as before the CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the materials on record. It is pertinent to note that both the authorities have passed ex-parte order but the fact remains that the assessee has forwarded the notice u/s. 148 to the local income tax professional who has not taken appropriate steps except filing the income tax return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act.
This needs consideration and at this juncture, the assessee has filed certain details before us. The said details are admitted and the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to adjudicate the matter on merit in consonance with evidences filed by the assessee as per Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02-01-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 02/01/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प 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 अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद