Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 12.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 02.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-Ward-1, Khandwa [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
“1.1 That impugned order passed by the Ld. CTT(A) partly sustaining the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 144 is bad in law, without
Page 1 of 6 jurisdiction, it is based on incorrect interpretation of law and without allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard, moreover the facts have also been incorrectly construed. 1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the ex-parte order u/s 144 passed by the Ld. AO without allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that reason for non-compliance was that the appellant is not conversant electronic applications of communications hence he was not aware with the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire and so also with the procedure how to file reply electronically and upload the evidences/statement, documents etc. on the Income Tax portal, for this reason assessee was unable to file reply to the questionnaires issued by the Ld. A.O along with evidences/statements/documents etc. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 33.720/- in estimating agriculture income at Rs.2,46,750/- as against Rs.2,80,470/- shown by the assessee. 3.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,60,000/- u/s 68 being cash deposited in the bank account. 3.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground relating to the cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was included in the cash deposit of Rs. 5,90,000/- in bank account. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,28,79,753/-being unsecured loan u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the amount of Rs. Rs. 1,28,79,753/- pertains to the opening balance of unsecured loans and are genuine for which confirmation of loan creditors duly signed and specifying their full name, address, PAN etc were filed. 5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not giving any finding any applicability of Section 115BBE on the addition made on account of cash deposited in bank and addition made on account of cash credit.”
The background facts leading to present appeal are such that a survey u/s 133A was conducted by Income-tax Department upon assessee on Page 2 of 6 27.09.2016 during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 under consideration. Thereafter, the assessee filed return of income of AY 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,20,250/- from business and agricultural income of Rs. 2,80,470/-. The AO selected assessee’s case for scrutiny and issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) as also show-cause notices from time to time but most of the notices issued by AO remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 144 after making multiple additions and determining total income at Rs. 1,53,85,190/- and accepting agricultural income at Rs. 2,46,750/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and got part relief.
Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us contesting the issues for which the relief was not given by CIT(A).
Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the orders of lower authorities.
Ld. AR submitted that the Grounds No. 1.1 and 1.2 are general and not being pressed by assessee. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as non-pressed.
Ld. AR next submitted that all remaining grounds are on various issued being contested by assessee on merit. Ground No. 2 relates to the wrong sustenance of addition of Rs. 33,720/- by CIT(A) on account of non- acceptance of part of agricultural income; Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 relate to the wrong sustenance of addition of Rs. 2,60,000/- (inclusive of credit entry
Page 3 of 6 of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of transfer from assessee’s one bank a/c to other bank a/c) by CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank a/c; Ground No. 4 relates to the wrong sustenance of the addition of Rs.
1,28,79,753/- by CIT(A) on account of opening balances in unsecured loans and Ground No. 5 relates to the wrong application of section 115BBE to some of the additions. Ld. AR briefly narrated the facts relating to these grounds one by one; referred certain paras of the orders of lower authorities and submitted that although the assessee was a student residing outside India during the year and the assessee’s father (who represented assessee before AO) could not file evidences to AO which has only led the AO to make various additions but, however, during first appeal the assessee filed all required evidences to CIT(A). Ld. AR referred the submissions filed by assessee to CIT(A), as re-produced by CIT(A) himself in the body of impugned order, containing clear-cut references of ‘additional evidences’ filed by assessee. Ld. AR then referred certain paras of the impugned order passed by CIT(A) to demonstrate that the CIT(A) has not given consideration to the additional evidences filed by assessee and has not made a proper adjudication although the grievances raised in Form No. 35 and the additional evidences filed by assessee to CIT(A) were substantial. After conclusion of hearing, Ld. AR also filed a spiral book on 18.08.2025 containing a copy of the application and the ‘additional evidences’ filed by assessee to CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (as per liberty given by bench during hearing).
At that juncture, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that having regard to the facts narrated by Ld. AR, the present case can only be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
In rejoinder, Ld. AR made a request that it would be better to remand this case to the file of AO instead of CIT(A) because the assessment-order is ex-parte u/s 144 and the AO shall be in a better position to examine the documents of assessee. Ld. DR for revenue instantly agreed to this submission of Ld. AR but made a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Considering above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO for a deeper examination of evidences of assessee, we remand the issues raised in Ground No. 2 to 5 to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 25/08/2025