Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Hubli, dated 23/02/2018 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 154 and 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short].
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Page 2 of 6 1. “The CIT (A) was not correct in not appreciating the facts that the Appellant could not appear before A.O. in view of his illness (Cancer).
2. The CIT (A) was not correct in not disposing the Appeal on merits though the Appellant has submitted the details for the additions made by A.O. and explained the transactions done in Bank account.
3. The CIT (A) was not correct in not accepting and considering the explanation given by Appellant for invoking provisions u/s. 246a in respect of uls.246A in respect of Additional evidences produced before him.
The CIT (A) was not correct in not calling Remand Report from A.O. based on the submission made before CIT (A) as A.O. has made best judgment assessment u/s 144.
5. The CIT (A) was not correct in not disposing of the Grounds of Appeal
on merits in respect of addition made by A.O quantify of Rs.50.08.300/-u/s.69A on best judgment proceedings u/s 144.
6. Both CIT (A) and A.O were not correct in disposing of the proceedings without giving sufficient opportunity to the Appellant.
7. The Appellant craves leave to add. to alter. to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal. Wherefore on the above grounds and on such other grounds the Appellant prays the Appellate Authority to delete the additions as above and may pass such other as the Appellate Authority deems fit”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed Return of income on 13/01/2013 with total income of Rs.1,69,570/- and the Return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) was sent
Page 3 of 6 through post but it was returned back by the postal authorities with remarks “left” “not known”. On 30/9/2011 the notice was served through the Inspector of Income-tax by way of affixture.
The Inspector of Income-tax has filed a report on 03/10/2011 that he has served the Notice by affixture on the compound wall of the assessee in the presence of two witnesses. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 15th May 2012 and was returned back with some reasons. Finally, the AO issued notice dated 15/01/2013 for completion of assessment u/s 144 of the Act based on information on record. Since the AO has no option to complete assessment u/s 144 of the Act perused the Return of income of the assessee found that the assessee has offered income u/s 44AF of the Act. Whereas as per AIR information, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.50,08,300/- in the savings bank account in the financial year 2009-10. Since no explanation or any details were produced by the assessee in response to notices and the AO, having granted sufficient opportunities, made the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act with addition u/s 69A of Rs.50,08,300/- and assessed the total income of Rs.51,77,870/- and passed the order u/s 144 of the Act dated 31/01/2013.
Page 4 of 6 4. Whereas the assessment order was rectified u/s 154 by disallowing the claim under Chapter VIA of the Act of Rs.30,000/- on 23/12/2013.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal with the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) is of the opinion that the AO has provided adequate opportunities in the course of assessment proceedings. But the assessee could not comply the directions due to illness and therefore AO was compelled to make best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Since the correctness of the information submitted in appellate proceedings could not be examined by the AO, the CIT(A) is of the opinion that it is not correct to admit such information and therefore, concurred with the order of the AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed appeal with the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, learned AR filed written submissions, bank statements, medical certificate and death certificate of late Ramireddy Raghunath and submitted that the said information could not be filed before the assessing authority and the assessee can prove with support the deposits in bank account and prayed that an opportunity be provided for submitting information and clarifications before the assessing authority.
Page 5 of 6 Contra, learned DR raised objections and submitted that the assessee filed the details before the Tribunal and whereas the AO was deprived to verify and examine the evidences and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. Prima facie, the order passed by the AO is best judgment u/s 144 of the Act as no evidence was produced by the assessee in respect of cash deposits by for various reasons.
The learned AR submitted that the assessee, having chronic ailment and illness and supported with medical certificate from Manipal Hospital at page 26 and the death certificate at page 27 of paper book. Whereas the assessee is represented by the legal heir and is ready to substantiate and explain cash deposits made in the bank account and referred to pages 14 to 23 of the paper book. We, considering the facts and circumstances and illness of the assessee, are of the opinion that is a fit case to restore to the file of the AO to meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, we restore the entire disputed issue along with evidences filed to the file of the AO to adjudicate afresh and consider the material filed by the assessee and further the assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order and we order accordingly.
Page 6 of 6 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.