KALIM KHAN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

PDF
ITA 827/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M JOSHI (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 6,35,000/- for AY 2011-12 due to a cash deposit in SBI. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 r.w. Section 147 due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices under Sections 148 and 142(1). The first appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte, leading the assessee to file a second appeal claiming denial of reasonable opportunity and lack of physical notice.

Held

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte and not on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on a de novo basis, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and precluding a decision on the merits of the cash deposit explanation.

Sections Cited

253, 250, 144, 147, 148, 142(1), 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Appellant: Shri N.D. Dave, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.05.2025Pronounced: 16.05.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee in terms of Section

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of

Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the

order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/

1069171717(1) dated 27.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250

of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12 and the

Page 1 of 7

Kalim Khan ITA No. 827/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2011-12

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2010 to

31.03.2011.

2.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order dated

27.11.2018 made u/s 144/147 of the Act the assessee’s total

assessed income was computed at Rs.6,35,000/- which is

hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.

The broad issue is cash deposited in S.B.I, Patrakar Colony

Branch, Indore S.B. A/c No.63040578791. Notice u/s 148 of the

Act was received by the assessee calling upon him to file the ROI.

Notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act was too issued to the assessee.

Since there was non compliance by the assessee throughout best

judgment was resorted to by the Ld. A.O. Hence the above

“impugned assessment order” u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned

assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act

before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed

the first appeal of the assessee on reasons and grounds specified

therein.

Page 2 of 7

Kalim Khan ITA No. 827/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2011-12

2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order”

has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and

has raised following grounds of appeal against the “impugned

order” which are as under:-

“1. The learned CIT (A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard and present his case to the appellant.

2.

The Learned CIT(A) has failed to understand that the appellant is an illiterate person having no knowledge and excess to the internet and erred in not providing an opportunity to the appellant by service of notice in physical form. 3. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the cash deposited 3 in the bank account of the appellant is fully explained and erred Rs in confirming the unlawful additions made by the learned AO”.

3.

Record of Hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on

15.05.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of assessee

appeared before this Tribunal and interalia pleaded that the

“impugned order” is illegal, bad in law and not proper. It is

passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much

as no opportunity of any personal hearing of any type was

afforded to the assessee before the “impugned order” was

passed. The assessee had engaged a professional consultant who

Page 3 of 7

Kalim Khan ITA No. 827/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2011-12

ought to have attended the hearing fixed for 02.03.2021,

30.04.2024, 25.07.2024, 23.09.2024 and 25.09.2004 but on all

these five dates of opportunities the assessee’s consultant did not

appear and for fault of his professional consultant assessee

cannot be faulted with. Had a notice would have come to him by

speed post or though a hard copy perhaps he would have

followed up with his professional consultant but unfortunately

that did not happen. Finally it was contended that since even the

impugned assessment order” is u/s 144 it would be just fair and

convenient that matter be re-looked in to afresh by providing

opportunity to the assessee so that there is correct determination

of income of the assessee according to law. The Ld. AR has

placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1

to 16 in support of his case. In the said paper book copy of pass

book of assessee, copy of registered sale deed dated 01.04.2011,

copy of ikrarnama etc have been placed on record. Per contra

Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of revenue contended that

both the orders of the lower authorities are ex-parte and has left

the issue to this Tribunal to take appropriate decision in

accordance with law. In brief the contentions of Ld. AR have not

Page 4 of 7

Kalim Khan ITA No. 827/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2011-12

been controverted by Ld. DR in an effective manner so that

strong rebuttal emerges out of it.

4.

Observations,findings & conclusions.

4.1 We now have to adjudge and adjudicate the present appeal

filed by the revenue on basis of the records of the case and

contentions canvassed before us during the course of hearing. In

brief we have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of

the “impugned order”.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as

presented to this tribunal by both Ld. AR and Ld. DR to

determine the legality, validity of the “Impugned Order” basis

law and by following due process of law.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon

examining the contentions of both Ld. AR and Ld. DR are of the

considered view that though the Ld. AR has pleaded strongly that

since the assessee is a senior citizen and all materials are now

Page 5 of 7

Kalim Khan ITA No. 827/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2011-12

produced before this Tribunal in form of paper book it would be

prudent on part of the Tribunal being final fact finding authority

to adjudge and adjudicate the present case on merits. We are

afraid, we cannot subscribe to such contentions as while it is

true that this Tribunal is final fact finding authority but at the

same time this Tribunal is not first fact finding authority.

Further both the orders of the lower authorities I.e. Ld. A.O & Ld.

CIT(A) are not on merits. The registry produced before us is

dated 01.04.2011 last page of registry is missing. We therefore

are of the considered opinion that all issues on merits and

demerits can be sorted out at the level of Assessing Officer more

effectively and prudently. Under these facts and circumstances

we deem it fit to set aside the “impugned order” and remand the

case back to the file of Ld. A.O for a fresh adjudication on merits

after giving assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Hence

“impugned order” is set aside and remanded to the Ld. A.O to

pass a fresh order on denovo basis.

Page 6 of 7

Kalim Khan ITA No. 827/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2011-12

5.

Order

5.1 In the premises drawn up by us (supra) we set aside the

Impugned order and remand the matter to Ld. A.O on denovo

basis.

5.2 In result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 16.05.2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore िदनांक/ Dated : 16/05/2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 7 of 7

KALIM KHAN,INDORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE | BharatTax