KUNDANBEN YOGESHKUMAR SHUKLA,GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 3, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 693/RJT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 January 2025AY 2011-20124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a retired teacher with pension income, claimed unawareness of online proceedings and inability to reply to notices due to lack of knowledge. The Tribunal observed that notices dated 27.02.2024 and 01.07.2024 were allegedly not served on the assessee, and the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the service of these notices. Finding that the assessee did not get a due opportunity to explain their case before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to quash the order and remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee will be given an opportunity to appear before the AO, file a return of income, and submit requested documents. The ratio decidendi is that an assessee must be afforded a proper opportunity of being heard before an assessment order is finalized, especially when procedural lapses or non-service of notices are alleged. The Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kundanben Yogeshkumar Shukla, a retired government school teacher, had an assessment for AY 2011-12 reopened based on information regarding a cash deposit of Rs. 12,26,000/-. As the assessee did not comply with notices, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment ex-parte, adding Rs. 10,43,000/- for unexplained cash deposit and Rs. 7803/- as interest. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal. The NFAC/CIT(A) had issued multiple notices, but the assessee only replied to the first two. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT challenges the NFAC/CIT(A)'s order and the original assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law? 2. Whether the reasons recorded by the AO for reassessment were improper? 3. Whether there is a nexus between the incriminating documents and the reasons recorded by the AO? 4. Whether proper approval was obtained from the appropriate authority before initiating reassessment proceedings? 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,43,000/- treating cash deposits as unexplained income? Assessee's Contentions: - The reassessment order is bad in law. - The reasons recorded by the AO are improper. - There is no nexus between incriminating documents and AO's reasons. - Proper approval was not taken for reassessment. - The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,43,000/-, as the cash deposits were from savings over years. - The assessee was not aware of the ITAT portal and hence could not reply to notices dated 27.02.2024 and 01.07.2024, which were allegedly not served. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue argued that four opportunities were given by the authority. The Ld. DR did not object to the assessee's request for an opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Swati Baid, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 19/12/2024Pronounced: 23/01/2025

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 09.07.2024, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are as followed:

1.

1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 is bad in law.

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reasons recorded by the AO are improper.

-A.Y. 2011-12 Kundanben Yogeshbhai Shukla v. ITO

3.

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no nexus between the incriminating documents and the reasons recorded by the AO 4. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, proper approval from the appropriate authority was not taken before initiating the reassessment proceedings 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,43,000/- treating the cash deposit in the bank from an unexplained source of income. 6. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the cash deposits in the bank were majorly from the savings made over a period of years 7. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of the AO 8. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tax and interest amount calculated in the demand notice are erroneous and incorrect 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal

3. Briefly facts of the case that the assessee is a retired teacher from a Government school and retired in the year 2003. She has not filed any return of the income. On the basis of information received of deposit of Rs. 12,26,000/-, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2011-12. As the appellant had not complied to the notices issued, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte wherein the addition of Rs. 10,43,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit and Rs. 7803/- of interest was added to the total income. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and NFAC.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. However, Ld. CIT(A) has issued the notices on 26.02.2021, 23.02.2021, 27.02.2024 and 01.07.2024. However, the assessee replied only on 26.02.2021 and 23.02.2021. The last two remain notices dtd. 27.02.2024 and 01.07.2024 are non-compiled by the assessee.

5.

The assessee filed an appeal before us against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 09.07.2024 before us.

-A.Y. 2011-12 Kundanben Yogeshbhai Shukla v. ITO

6.

Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that notice dated 27.02.2024 and 01.07.2024 was not served on the assessee. However, the assessee could not reply the assessment, and also passed as ex-parte order, and the assessee could not reply because the assessee is not known about ITAT Portal.

7.

However, Ld. DR for the revenue has submitted that four opportunities given by the Authority. However, Ld. DR has not objected to the request of the assessee/AR.

8.

We have heard the both the parties and material available on record. We note that the assessee has only having pension income from the Government School. Since, the assessee is not aware about the online proceeding of the Income Tax Act. Further, the assessee could not reply to the notice. We further note that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2024 and 01.07.2024. However, noticed not served on the assessee. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) talked about the issued of notice for hearing. However, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is silent on service of the notice upon the assessee. We have perused and find that the assessee could not get due opportunity to explain his case before the Lower Authority. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee kindly be given one more opportunity to explain his case before the Lower Authority. We hereby quashed the order and remit back the case before the Ld. AO to frame assessment afresh. We are granting an opportunity to the assessee to appeared before the Assessing Officer. After giving due opportunity to the assessee, the assessee filed return of income and submitted the documents asked for by the Ld. AO.

9.

Therefore, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before the Ld. AO. We set aside the order of Ld. AO -A.Y. 2011-12 Kundanben Yogeshbhai Shukla v. ITO and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/01/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →