MOHAMMAD ALI IMAM,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), PATNA, PATNA

PDF · subscribers

ITA 474/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not represent their case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond their control. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the order confirming an addition of Rs. 12,17,000/- for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte as the hearing notice was issued during the Covid-19 lockdown, and their counsel was unavailable due to illness and subsequent death.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order of CIT(A) warrants setting aside and restoration of the matter for proper adjudication due to the assessee's inability to represent due to Covid-19 and counsel's unavailability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Prasoon Kr. Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

order

: 21.01.2025 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.05.2024 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.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs. 12,17,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee inviting our attention to the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer as well as of the Ld. CIT(A) has submitted that both the orders of the authorities below have been passed ex

I.T.A. No.: 474/PAT/2024 Mohammad Ali Imam, AY : 2017-18 parte of the assessee. The assessee has duly pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) because the Ld. CIT(A) had issued notice of hearing during Covid-19/lock down period. Further, the Ld. Counsel representing the assessee namely Shri Sudhir Kumar Narayan during the said period was diagnosed with prostate cancer and that disease had occurred time and again and ultimately, he died on 09.06.2024. That due to the aforesaid circumstance, the assessee could not represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been pleaded that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to bring the true and correct factual position before the lower authorities.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee and in the interests of justice, in our view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on this issue. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and if required, he may obtain remand report from the Assessing Officer and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law.

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →