MRS JYOTI DEEPAK KHOPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 142/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 March 2022AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition of Rs.39,82,765/- on account of a cash deposit. The CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order after giving multiple opportunities, which the assessee claimed were not received.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) was valid when the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence for cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) on 21-12-2021 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the AO re-opened the assessment u/s.148 by means of notice on the ground that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.40.00 lakh in Central Bank of India. After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.39,82,765/-. The ld.

1.

CIT(A) passed the order ex parte after recording in para 5 of the impugned order that 7 opportunities were given to the assessee, which was not availed. The ld. AR contended that no notice was received by the assessee inasmuch as the e-mail ID used by the ld. CIT(A) was that of the assessee’s counsel and no such intimation about the hearing dates was passed over to the assessee. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter may be referred back to the AO for examining the assessee’s contention in support of the cash deposits with reference to the relevant evidence. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh as per law. I order accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2022.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →