Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in trading agricultural produce, filed a return and his assessment was reopened due to an alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 52,92,000/-. An addition of the same amount was made under Section 69A of the Act, assessing total income at Rs. 62,25,520/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices for hearing, to which the appellant had responded but without proper documentation. However, the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a proper adjudication on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 144B, 272A(1)(d), 148, 148A(d), 139(1), 69A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH,
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 19.08.2024, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 19.05.2023.
Since, these two appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the separate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), for different assessment years u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act, and different issues are involved, therefore, all Ashvinbhai Lavjibhai Rajani & 784 /Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-15) these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. First we will adjudicate the AY 2013-14. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee:
1) Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in passing ex-parte appellate order us 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is bad in law and without appropriate jurisdiction 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in presuming that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal memo and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution 4) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and without appropriate jurisdiction. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 5) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in passing order u/s. 148A(d) of the act. which is erroneous, invalid and bad in law. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 6) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the act, which is baseless, erroneous, invalid and prejudicial to the principles of natural justice. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 7) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in no supplying any of the material, document, statement supporting the information and also not giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same 8) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in contending that the appellant is having account with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban co-operative Society Ltd. without brining any document, evidence, support on record Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same 9)Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of ₹ 58,80,000/- u/s. 69A of the act in respect of alleged unexplained investment in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co Operative Society Ltd on the sole basis of the unsubstantiated and unverified information. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 10) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of ₹ 58,80,000/- without rebutting the objections raised by the appellant. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same Ashvinbhai Lavjibhai Rajani & 784 /Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-15)
11) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in not giving credit of the cash withdrawal made from the alleged account. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 12) Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in not restricting the addition upto the profit element embedded in the gross deposits made in the alleged account. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same.
3. Brief facts of the case that the appellant is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of agricultural produce like wheat, groundnuts etc. the assessee has filed return of income u/s. 139(1) on 30.9.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 9,33,520/-. The assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the act, dated 16.04.2021. on the basis of the information that the assessee had made investment of Rs. 52,92,000/- with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative credit society Ltd. That the amount of Rs. 52,92,000/- remain unexplained. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 52,92,000/- on unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Total income assessed at Rs. 62,25,520/- dated 19.05.2023.
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO. That the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) with following observation:
"2. The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum-notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was called for hearing on this date, neither anybody attended nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). It is held accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed."
Ashvinbhai Lavjibhai Rajani & 784 /Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-15)
The assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the tax consultant of the assessee has not disclosed the details for the hearing of the case to the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for one more opportunity should be given to the assessee.
On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued several notices for hearing of the case. In response to the notices the appellant has submitted the response and the same is not proper no documents/ evidences submitted along with the response. We further note that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal as per mandate of provisions u/s. 250(6) of the Act. However, we are of the view, that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party should be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Keeping in view, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
Ashvinbhai Lavjibhai Rajani & 784 /Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-15) an appeal for AY 2014-15 are relating to penalty u/s. 272A(1)(d) is disposed in the same term.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04 -04-2025.