SRI SYED REHAMAN, PROP: M/S. B K BEEDI WORKS,HARIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, DAVANGERE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1366/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 March 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient time for the assessee to reply and did not consider the assessee's submission dated 04.03.2016. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 51,60,000 made by the AO as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee contended that the AO wrongly invoked Section 144 and that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in invoking Section 144 and making the addition without properly considering the assessee's explanation, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming this action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH B, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI. A. K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate

PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A), Davangere, dt.22.02.2017, for the assessment year 2010-11. On the following effective ground :

ITA.1366/Bang/2017 Page - 2 3.1 The learned CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.51,60,000/- considered as unexplained cash deposit in the Bank account under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case.

2.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was no occasion for the AO to invoke section under section 144 of the Act and make addition of Rs.51,60,000 into SB account in Corporation Bank, Harihara. Assessee had drawn our attention to letter dated 17.02.2016 of the AO and response dated 04.03.2016, in the remand proceedings before the CIT.

3.

On the basis of these letters and order of CIT appeals at page 4, it was submitted that the AO has not considered reply dated 04.03.2016, and in the appeal CIT(A) had wrongly confirmed the order of AO.

4.

Per contra the Ld. DR had submitted that the action of the lower authorities were in accordance with law and no interference is called for.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In our view both the lower authorities had not given sufficient time to reply to the notice under section 144 and further both authorities had failed to take into account the submission dated. 04.03.2016. In view thereof the entire appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo examination of the submissions of the assessee , after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the explanation given in response to invocation of section 144. Needless to say there is no undue ITA.1366/Bang/2017 Page - 3 adjudication on merit of claim of the assessee by the tribunal and the CIT(A) may call for remand report if assessee filed any document before the AO and thereafter pass a reasoned speaking order, after affording the opportunity to the assessee .

6.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →