Loading judgment…

HAMIRBHAI RAHABHAI SHIYALIYA,RAJKOT vs ITO WARD-2(2)(5), RAJKOT | BharatTax

HAMIRBHAI RAHABHAI SHIYALIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(5), RAJKOT

ITA 110/RJT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 January 2025AY 2017-184 pages

AI SummaryN/A

Facts

The assessee, an individual who did not file an ITR for AY 2017-18, deposited Rs. 20,08,000/- during demonetization. He attributed Rs. 16,05,200/- of this as gifts from relatives, used for housing loan repayment, along with personal savings and agricultural income for the remaining amount. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 16,05,200/- under Section 69A and framed an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, which the CIT(A) upheld by dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-response to e-notices.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the case was not adjudicated on merits by the lower authorities, and the CIT(A)'s order was silent on proper service of notices, especially considering the assessee's claim of illiteracy. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit, granting the assessee a due opportunity to be heard.

Key Issues

Validity of ex-parte assessment and appeal dismissal without proper adjudication on merits and ensuring notice service, especially concerning cash deposits and gifts from relatives.

Sections Cited

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1964, Section 69A of the Income Tax Act

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 Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. A.R

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Hearing: 23/12/2024Pronounced: 22/01/2025

PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2017- 18, are directed against order passed by Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Order dated 26/12/2023, which intern arises out of order passed by Assessing Officer dated 30/12/2019 u/s 144 of The Income Tax Act, 1964.

2.

Grounds of appeal

1.

1. raised by the assessee are as below: 1). The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,05,200/- made u/s 69A of the Act being cash deposits in bank account. The addition may kindly be deleted.

3. Facts of the case are that assessee is an individual for A.Y. 2017-18. In this case assessee has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. During Hamirbhai Shiyalia Vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Rajkot (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA-110/RJT/2024 the period of the demonetization from 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, The assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 20,08,000/- Total Cash Deposit- Rs. 20,08,000/- Bank Name- Federal Bank : Rs. 17,59,000/- Canara Bank : Rs. 04,02,800/- 4. In response to the notice dated 14/06/2019 assessee submitted his reply vide letter dated 23/07/2019. He has submitted copy of 7/12 & 8A utara related to agricultural activities and agricultural product bills dated 06.11.2016 of Rs.4,52,655/-. He has enclosed proof regarding payment of housing loan (copy of Federal Bank statement for the period 12.04.2014 to 31.03.2017). He has explained the source of cash deposit as under Rs.4,02,800/- out of his own savings and income from agricultural activity Rs.16,05,200/- Gift received from his relatives (like Mother, wife & Aunty )

Name Sr. Date Relationship Amount No.

6.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 30/12/2019. Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], NFAC. During the appellate proceedings CIT(A) has issued e-notices to the assessee on email id kishan447@icloud.com. But no response has been filed by the assessee in reply to the notices. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 26/12/2023 7. Assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC dated 26/12/2023 before us. 8. Ld. Counsel of the assessee (AR) submitted assessee could not comply because no notices were served on the assessee. Since the assessee is an illiterate person and do not know about the proceedings going before the CIT(A). Ld. Counsel of the assessee (AR) requested that an opportunity should be granted to explain the matter to the lower authorities. 9. Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue submitted that notices were given to the assessee but the assessee did not comply with the notices. However, Ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the prayer of the assessee. 10. We have heard both the parties and perusal of the on records available. We have noted that CIT(A)issued the notices on email submitted by the assessee in Form No.35. However, Order of the CIT(A) is silent on serving of Hamirbhai Shiyalia Vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Rajkot (A.Y. 2017-18) ITA-110/RJT/2024 the same notices upon the assessee. We note that Ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of the Ld. AO. We have also noted that during the assessment proceedings in response to the notices assessee submitted the sales bill of agricultural products and details of payment of housing loan and also submitted affidavit regarding the gifts received from the relatives but finally assessment was passed ex-parte by The CIT(A). According to the facts of the case we note that the case was not adjudicated before the Ld. AO. We are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to frame an order of assessment after given due opportunity to the assessee and assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. AO as notices served by the Ld. AO. Therefore, We set asides the order of lower authority 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.