Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file income tax returns for AY 2011-12 and prior years. Despite notices, the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment for AY 2012-13, where income was assessed at Rs. 18,49,500/-, being 30% of total receipts. The CIT(A) confirmed this order.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent behavior and failure to respond to notices or provide documents. However, considering the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case before the lower authority.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made and penalties initiated were justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 271B, 271F, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271(1)(c), 77(A1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI DIESH MOHAN SINHA & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
Appellant by : Shri Yogesh B Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR : 22/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 21/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 18.10.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section (u/s.) 144r.w.s147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITA 95/SRT/2025 Abdulsami Abdulhamid Zariwala 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:
The learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,49,500/- being 30% of Rs.61,65,000/- (being total receipt during the year) though 8% of Rs.61,65,000/- is prescribed u/s 77(A1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition should be restricted to the extent of 8% of the Rs.61,65,000/- i.e. 4,93,200/-.
The learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not allowing ground for deleting interest U/s 234-A, 234-B,234-C, which are not chargeable under presumptive Taxation.
The learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not allowing ground for dilation of Penal Actions initiated Under Section 271(1)(c) as assessment of income has been made on estimate basis. 4. The learned CIT (Appeal), and The learned Assessing Officer, Word 2(3)(6) Both have initiated Penal Actions U/s 271B and 271F in their respective orders but the same are initiated without deriving satisfaction Note in their respective orders under appeal. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the penalty actions-initiated U/s 271B, and U/s 271F be dropped in absence of satisfactory notes. 5. The Appellant may be allowed to raise new grounds of appeal
and to rectify modify, withdraw any grounds of appeal duly raised by him.
3. Facts of the Case:
In this case, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y.201,1-12 or earlier Assessment Years and the name of assessee is. appearing in NMS module. According to information the assessee has deposited cash Rs.7,47,500/- .in HDFC BANK. The Ld. AO had reason to believe that the income of Rs.8,72,000/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y 2012-13. The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2019 was issued to the assessee at his last known address. That AO made an assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Income tax Act.
~ 2 ~ ITA 95/SRT/2025 Abdulsami Abdulhamid Zariwala 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who upheld the order of the AO by order dated 18.10.2024.
The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.10.2024.
The Ld. AR of the assesse submitted that one opportunity be kindly given to him to explain his case before the lower authority.
On the contrary Ld. DR of the revenue relied on the order of lower authority.
We have perused the material available on record and note that the assessment order passed exparte u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the IT Act 1961. We note that the AO has issued several notices to assesse along with show cause notice but assessee did not respond to the notices. By AO income was assessed at Rs 18,49,500/-. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the order of the AO on the ground that assessee has a gross receipt of Rs 61,65,000/- Wherein the AO considered 30% of the receipt as income because of assessee couldn’t produce the relevant document in support of the claim of return. We further note that the assessee has not submitted the document before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. The assessee has negligent behavior in pursuing the appeal so, we have imposed a cost of Rs 10,000/- and the same is deposited in Prime Minister relief fund within 10 days from receipt of this order and the copy of receipt is provided to the AO during the course of hearing of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we are of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to present this case before the lower authority. We remand the matter back to the file of Ld AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure the participation in the hearing as may be fixed by AO. AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
~ 3 ~ ITA 95/SRT/2025 Abdulsami Abdulhamid Zariwala 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the open court on 21/10/2025.