Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee individual derived income from a retail gas agency and filed a return. During demonetization, the assessee deposited a significant sum in cash. The Assessing Officer issued notices, but the assessee did not provide satisfactory explanations for the deposits, leading to additions for unexplained money.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity for a hearing.
Sections Cited
69A, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 147
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 Rakesh Kumar Singh,……….…..……..……Appellant Ram Dulari Singh Path, Mehsaul, Sitamarhi-843302, Bihar [PAN:AQTPS5327B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……….….…………...Respondent Ward-2(5), Sitamarhi, Bihar Appearances by: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Anwar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: December 26, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), Thane dated 21st March, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who derives income from Bagmati HP Gas Agency on retail trade of LPG Gas Cylinder and other LPG products. The assessee filed (A.Y. 2017-2018) Rakesh Kumar Singh his return of income declaring total income at Rs.3,84,680/-. As per ITS report of ITBA, the assessee deposited Rs.11,17,500/- in cash in his Bank account of Canara Bank, bearing Account No. 2312285000642 during the demonetization period. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and the same was served upon the assessee. But the assessee did not respond to the notice. Thereafter ld. Assessing Officer issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith questionnaire and duly served on the assessee. The assessee could not offer explanation about the nature and source of deposits made in his bank account. Hence, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the value of deposits of Rs.2,64,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Consequently, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3)/147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.6,49,180/-.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee did not submit documents in support of his claim inspite of providing multiple opportunities to the assessee. Thereafter the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had no other option except passing the order on merits based on the material available on record. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. It was the submission of the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider his case on merit and just upheld (A.Y. 2017-2018) Rakesh Kumar Singh the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. He pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
On the other hand, ld. D.R. brought to our notice that the assessee did not participate during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 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, inspite of service of notice, the assessee did not turn up to substantiate his case before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
I have heard both the sides 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. 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 31/01/2025.