HARISHANKAR NASIBI PRASAD,PATNA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

PDF

ITA 611/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 February 2025AY 2014-15Bench: the Ld. AO and is seen to have totally disregarded the submissions made by the assessee before him. Needless to say, the additions made by the Ld. AO have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. We have carefully considered the documents before us and have examined the same with the help of Ld. DR. While, the Ld. DR supported the order of authorities below, it is seen that there were documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which have not been considered at all. We are unable to support this line of1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 4,15,000/- for unexplained cash deposit and disallowed expenses of Rs. 18,142/- because the assessee did not respond to notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld these additions. On the last date of hearing, no one appeared for the assessee.

Held

The Tribunal noted that documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A) were not considered, and the Ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the assessee's non-appearance before the AO. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merit.

Key Issues

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) correctly upheld the additions made by the AO without considering all the documents filed by the assessee.

Sections Cited

143(2), 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PATNA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 25 .02.2025

ORDER PER BENCH

The present appeal arises from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 14.08.2024 for AY 2014-15.

1.1 In this case, the point of consideration is that admittedly, the Ld. AO issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, which were not responded to. Accordingly, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 4,15,000/- by way of unexplained cash deposit and also made several disallowances of expenses amounting to Rs. 18,142/-.

Harishankar Nasibi Prasad 1.2 On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has been persuaded by the fact that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. AO and is seen to have totally disregarded the submissions made by the assessee before him. Needless to say, the additions made by the Ld. AO have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).

We have carefully considered the documents before us and have examined the same with the help of Ld. DR. While, the Ld. DR supported the order of authorities below, it is seen that there were documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which have not been considered at all. We are unable to support this line of thinking as is evident from a reading of the impugned order. Consequently, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for adjudication on merit. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee would do well to file necessary details in his support and the Ld. CIT(A) would be expected to adjudicate on the basis of facts before him, and if required, after calling for a report from the Ld. AO.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.