SUNITA GARG,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (1) INDORE, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 389/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 January 2025AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both the assessee and the revenue, and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for proper verification and adjudication on merit. The Tribunal emphasized that this remand is at the risk and responsibility of the assessee. The JAO is directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by any previous order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by the JAO and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to comply may result in the JAO passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunita Garg, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order upheld the assessment order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer (AO), Ward 4(1), Indore, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO had made additions totaling Rs. 1,37,63,955/- to the assessee's returned income of Rs. 4,52,010/-. These additions included Rs. 87,00,000/- for unexplained unsecured loans, Rs. 3,38,175/- for disallowance of interest on these loans, Rs. 40,11,000/- for unexplained bank deposits, and Rs. 2,62,770/- under Section 40A(2). The assessee contended that during assessment, required documentary evidence could not be filed, but during the first appeal, some evidence was collected and submitted. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence collected by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that all required evidence has now been collected and is available with the Tribunal. The assessee is ready to present and explain these evidences to the AO and any further evidence the AO may require. Therefore, the case should be remanded to the AO for a fresh adjudication after examining these evidences. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative agreed with the assessee's prayer for remand. However, the Revenue requested that the case be remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and that the assessee be directed to make adequate representation before the JAO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Solanki, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 30.01.2025Pronounced: 31.01.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 16.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-4(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the assessment-order to demonstrate that the AO has made additions of (i) Rs. 87,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans, (ii) Rs. 3,38,175/- on account of disallowance of interest claimed by assessee on such unsecured loans, (iii) Rs. 40,11,000/- on account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c, and (iv) Rs. 2,62,770/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(2) and thereby assessed total income of assessee at Rs. 1,37,63,955/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,52,010/-. Ld. AR submitted that during assessment-proceedings, the assessee was not able to file documentary evidences which has resulted in these hefty additions. However, during first-appeal the assessee could collect part of the evidences and submit before CIT(A) but the CIT(A) merely re- produced the Grounds of Appeal and Assessee’s Submissions and finally upheld AO’s order in just 3 sentences by stating as under:

“5. Findings The grounds of appeal

, the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the assessee have been carefully considered. There is no material on record to warrant interference with the order of the AO. Grounds of appeal are accordingly dismissed.”

3. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee has collected and having possession of all evidences required by AO for an apt adjudication. These evidences are also filed in Tribunal in the form of a box file. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is ready to file and explain these evidences to AO and also any other evidence as the AO may further require. Accordingly, this case needs to remanded to AO for a fresh adjudication after examination of evidences.

4. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to remand this case to Jurisdictional AO [“JAO”] and also urges that the assessee should be directed to make adequate representation before JAO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

5.

Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of JAO for a proper verification and adjudication on merit, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The JAO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by JAO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the JAO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

6.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 31/01/2025

More judgments on Section 40A(2)

All 542 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →