Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 206 days, but the delay was condoned. The assessee did not appear, so the appeal was decided ex-parte based on records and the Ld. DR's arguments. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 3,42,288 based on peak credit in the bank account and an estimation of 8% profit on total deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. The assessee claimed the deposits were business receipts from fertilizer transactions. The Tribunal found that the facts were not properly examined by the lower authorities and that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities properly examined the facts of the case, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG
order : 13.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.12.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
This appeal of assessee is time barred by 206 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made the said application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after going through the records and after hearing the Ld. DR.
The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.3,42,288/- on I.T.A. No.: 580/PAT/2024 Pawan Kumar Jha, AY : 2017-18 account of peak credit of the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee on different dates. The assessee has also agitated against the action of the lower authorities in estimating 8% profit rate on the total deposits in the bank account.
At the outset, it is noticed that the impugned assessment order is an ex parte/best judgment order passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also an ex parte order. A perusal of the facts on record would reveal that the assessee has claimed before the lower authorities that the aforesaid deposits were out of business receipts of the assessee in respect of the fertilizer business. It has been explained through submissions before the Assessing Officer that the aforesaid credit and debit entries were in respect of transactions with IFFCO, which entity deals with the fertilizers. In this case, in my view, the facts of the case have not been properly examined by the lower authorities. The assessee, in my view, deserves an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh on the issue. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.