ABDUL JALEEL,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1, PALAKKAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 774/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 February 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence during proceedings at both lower levels and before the ITAT, and questioned the clarity of notice service by the ld.CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide the assessee a meaningful opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file an income tax return for AY 2016-17. Following an AIR report of a Rs. 4,96,59,613 bank deposit, the case was reopened u/s 148, and the Assessing Officer treated the deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A, which the ld.CIT(A) upheld due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether a large cash deposit could be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A without ensuring proper service of notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Pronounced: 19.02.2025

Asst.Year 2016-2017 Sri.Abdul Jaleel The Income Tax Officer Vapparakkal Kongad IIParasery Ward-1 v. Kongad Palakkad. Palakkad – 678 631. PAN : BFPPA5260M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :--- None --- Respondent by :Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025. O R D E R

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 12th August, 2024 and it relates to assessment year 2016- 2017, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067566462(1).

2.

The brief facts as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed any return of income for the impugned assessment year. Thereafter on the basis of AIR information, revealing that the assessee has deposited Rs.4,96,59,613 in his bank account. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Before the Assessing Officer no . Sri.Abdul Jaleel. one appeared in reassessment proceedings and hence the AO treated the entire cash deposit of Rs.4,96,59,613 as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and framed the assessment.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and contended that the AO has erred in treating the entire cash deposit as unexplained money. However, no one appeared before the ld.CIT(A) also and hence the ld.CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO.

4.

Today, when the matter was called up for hearing, non one appeared from the side of the assessee despite proper service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we are deciding the appeal on the basis of material available on record.

5.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. It is observed from the statement of facts filed before the ld.CIT(A) as well as before us that the notice of hearing from the office of the ld.CIT(A) were sent via Income Tax Portal. However, whether the notices were served on the assessee or not is not coming out from the order of the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are restoring the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) would grant meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.

Order pronounced on this 19th day of February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →