Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2017-18, despite being issued a notice under section 148 and a subsequent notice under section 142(1) for details regarding cash deposits, loans, and properties. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 15,60,220/-. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal after the assessee failed to appear or submit written submissions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced relevant documents during assessment and had also failed to file submissions before the CIT(Appeals). However, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh hearing.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Nagendra Kumar Singh,………..…..……..……Appellant Flat No. 204B, Terrace Gardenia Apartment, Near Laddu Gopal Sweets, Shiv Shambhu Colony, Ashiana Digha Road, Patna-800025, Bihar [PAN:CZSPS0879N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-5(3), Patna, Bihar Appearances by: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: April 30, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20th June, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Nagendra Kumar Singh 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per ITBA system, the assessee had not filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18. The Department has possessed information that assessee had deposited huge cash during demonetization period from 9th November to 30th December, 2016 in his bank account. Accordingly, the case was selected for scrutiny with prior approval of the competent authority. Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 03.10.2018 for filing return for the AY 2017-18 within 30 days from the service of this notice. In response, the assessee did not make any reply. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee asking to furnish details of source of income, all bank accounts statement for the FY 2016-17, furnishing the source of cash deposit into the bank account during demonetization period, details of secured and unsecured loan along with investment made during the FY 2016- 17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and details of movable and immovable properties in the name of assessee and his family members. As the assessee did not furnish true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer vide its order dated 22.11.2019 treated the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,60,220/- and charged interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C as per Rules. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assesese to substantiate his claim, but the appellant did not file the written submissions and did not represent the case before the
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider the case on merit, rather he just upheld the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs.15,60,220/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. (A.Y. 2017-2018) Nagendra Kumar Singh CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/05/2025.