JAGDISH CHAND,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

PDF

ITA 558/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 January 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA NO. 558/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jagdish Chand बनाम The ITO S/o Shri Babu Ram, H.No. 867/22, Partap Colony, Kurukshetra-136118, Haryana Ward-1 Kurukshetra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AIOPC8757C अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate, Shri Rohit Kaura, Advocate Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. 1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessment was completed under section 144, bringing an amount to tax as unexplained money. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who sustained the order due to non-prosecution. The assessee claims they were not given adequate opportunity and the order was passed ex-parte.

Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and should not be condemned unheard. For substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the matter should be remitted for a fresh hearing.

Sections Cited

144, 69A, 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 16/03/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 144 vide order dt. 18/12/2018 wherein an amount of Rs. 20,54,000/- has been brought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said order on account of non-prosecution on behalf of the assessee.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. It was submitted that only one notice was issued by the ld CIT(A) and even the said notice was not been served on the assessee and immediately, thereafter, the impugned order was passed and therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from 2 attending to the proceedings before CIT(A). It was further submitted that even on merits, no finding has been recorded by the ld CIT(A) and the assessee is a petty scooter mechanic and running a small shop and has deposited only a sum of Rs 11,04,000/- instead of Rs 20,54,000/- as stated by the AO and the said deposit is his business receipts and whole of such receipts cannot be brought to tax. It was accordingly submitted that assessee be allowed one last opportunity and the matter may be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh and it was submitted that the assessee shall attend to the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the necessary information/documentation.

Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied on the order of the lower authorities.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on the record, we find that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and cannot be condemned unheard and therefore, keeping in view principles of substantial justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.