Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed original and revised returns of income. The AO reopened the case under Section 147 based on information about the purchase of an immovable property. The AO made additions under Section 69 for unexplained investment and under Section 68 for unexplained credit.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before additions were made under Sections 69 and 68, and whether the appeal should be restored to provide such an opportunity.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 144B, 69, 68, 115BBE, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 02.06.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.38,20,100/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised his return of income on 21.10.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.49,32,490/-. As the Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property valued at Rs.6,50,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 01.11.2022, declaring the same income as declared in the revised return of income filed on 21.10.2016, i.e., Rs.49,32,490/-. The AO also issued statutory notices to the assessee requiring the assessee to furnish requisite details. In response, the assessee filed written submissions and submitted the computation of income, copy of purchase deed, loan account details of Syndicate Bank, receipt of sale of gold, Bank Statement and confirmations from unsecured loan providers. After considering the written submissions filed by the assessee and other materials placed before him, the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with sections 147 and 144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under:
Income as per ITR dt. 02.06.2016 : Rs.38,20,100/- Income as per revised ITR dt. 21.10.2016 : Rs.49,32,490/- Income as per ITR dt. 01.11.2022 : Rs.49,32,490/- Addition u/s. 69 of the Act : Rs.3,12,23,018/- Addition u/s. 68 of the Act : Rs.22,00,000/- Total income : Rs.3,83,55,508/- 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately.
Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority/NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance by the assessee.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and made addition of Rs.31223018/- (Rs.23693700/- as unsecured loan taken from parties, Gold sale of Rs.5409946, Past saving and income of Rs.2119372/-)for purchasing of immovable property as unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Act without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and made addition of Rs.2200000/-, Loan given and received in same year as unexplained credit u/s 68 of income tax act 1961 without giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in imposing interest under section 234A, B, C of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or raise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal.
None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application received in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
The Ld. CIT (D.R.) had no objection to the appeal being restored to the AO.
We have heard the Ld. CIT (D.R.) and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, we restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the Assessee to present his case and produce the necessary evidences in support of his case. We also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2025.