V R AUTO SERVICES,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 642/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 December 2022AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the NFAC confirmed the addition without providing the assessee an opportunity to present their case or evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, V.R. Auto Services, was subjected to scrutiny for cash deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,38,33,185/- invoking Section 69 of the Act. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made by the AO without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard or present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 16-08-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘NFAC’) for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the NFAC, Delhi justified in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act in the absence of ex-parte of assessee.

3. At the outset, we note that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of trading in petroleum products. The assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.17,69,830/-. Under scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee to examine the huge cash deposits during the year under consideration. According to the ld. AR, Shri Pramod Shingte, the assessee filed all the details as called by the AO from time to time, despite, the AO made addition of Rs.2,38,33,185/- by invoking the provisions u/s. 69 of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority contending that the AO erred in making ad-hoc addition on the ground of cash deposit in bank without pointing out any defect in the books of account without rejecting the books of account u/s. 145(3) of the Act. The ld. AR submits that the NFAC, Delhi confirmed the order of AO in the absence of assessee’s submissions and no opportunity whatsoever were given to the assessee. On perusal of impugned order shows that the NFAC, Delhi proceeded on the material available on record and no reference whatsoever made with regard to assessee’s submissions or filing of evidences in support of grounds raised challenging the action of AO. At the outset, we note that there was no opportunity for the assessee before the NFAC, Delhi. The ld. DR, Shri M.G. Jasnani reported no objection in remanding the issue to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh examination. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the undertaking advanced by the ld. AR that the assessee is ready to prosecute its grounds before the NFAC, Delhi and the submissions of ld. AR and ld. DR in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT, NFAC, Delhi for its fresh verification. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →