UMA SURI (L/H OF RAVI SURI),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 43(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8318/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 February 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order after the assessee's death without this information being placed before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits in a savings bank account. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits and for Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee expired during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order due to the death of the assessee and non-representation, and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Smt. Premlata Bansal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. In the grounds of appeal, the Assessee has raised following grounds.

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and under law, the CIT (A) has erred in law in passing an ex-parte order against the Appellant.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and under law, the CIT (A) has erred in law in not considering that there was non-compliance on the part of the appellant due to the death of the appellant i.e. Mr. Ravi Suri, which lead to non- representation of the case.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,57,88,750/- made by the AO U/s 69A of the Act.

4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,86,354/- while computing the long term capital gain.”

2.

The present appeal has been filed by the legal heir of the assessee, who has expired on 02.08.2019. The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 28.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.93,85,570/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for cash deposit in the savings bank account and accordingly notices u/s.143(2) has been issued. The bank statement of the assessee revealed that he has deposited cash for sums aggregating to Rs.2,57,88,750/- in his bank account. After detailed reasoning and finding, Assessing Officer has confirmed the said addition u/s.69A. Further, he has also made addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.33,86,354/- in respect of four plots sold to M/s. Shree Padam Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. which was claimed to be agricultural land within the purview of Section 2(14). The appeal was filed by Late Shri Ravi Suri, the assessee, and as per the noting of the Ld. CIT(A) at paragraph 3, on initial dates of hearing, adjournment was sought but later on none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Accordingly, he proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer.

3.

Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee had expired and due to this reason compliance could not be made. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, it was submitted that matter should be remanded back to the file of the assessee to be decided a fresh and on merits.

4.

Ld. DR, on the other hand, did not have any objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided a fresh.

5.

After considering the rival submissions and material placed on record, we find that initially assessee had made compliance of the notices through authorized representative and adjournment was sought. However, later on, when assessee had died, the notices sent could not be responded and accordingly Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 23.09.2019, i.e., just after the expiry of the assessee. Apart from that, the order has been passed in the name of the deceased person because that information was not placed before the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, we are remanding the issue raised in grounds of appeal, before us, back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided a fresh and in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th December, 2019.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →