Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return for AY 2011-12. The case was reopened u/s 148 based on information of unexplained bank credits of Rs. 32,73,831/-, including cash deposits. The assessee absconded, leading the AO to pass an ex-parte assessment u/s 147/144, adding Rs. 53,12,313/- as unexplained credits u/s 69. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, but the Tribunal noted a significant 'cut and paste error' in the CIT(A)'s order, which referred to facts and an addition amount related to a different assessment year (2013-14) and potentially another assessee.
Held
The Tribunal observed a fundamental 'cut and paste error' in the CIT(A)'s order, where it referred to irrelevant facts concerning a different assessment year and addition amount. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to produce all relevant submissions and evidence.
Key Issues
The key issues raised included the validity of reopening assessment u/s 147, denial of natural justice, and confirmation of unexplained credit addition u/s 69; however, the Tribunal's primary finding was a 'cut and paste error' in the CIT(A)'s order relating to a different assessment year and figures.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 69, Section 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2011-12.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in not considering the assessment order is bad in law as reopening u/s 147 was based merely on third-party information without independent verification or recorded reasons furnished to the appellant.
2. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred by not providing proper opportunity breached the principles of natural justice.
3. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 53,12,313/- ignoring the appellant's reconciliations, contra entries, refunded advances, and the actual nature of business receipts.
4. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in considering the appellant's income from business ought to have been computed under section 44AD considering gross receipts and profit margin.
5. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in considering the total receipts of Rs. 53,12,313/- and ought to have computed income on a reasonable basis instead of taxing gross deposits as income.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the return of income has since been filed during the appellate proceedings, duly declaring the appellant's income, and ought to have been taken into consideration.
7. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, and bad in law by ignoring the evidences and judicial precedents cited by the appellant.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds before or at the time of hearing.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, Thane the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued. The information indicated that there were credits of Rs.32,73,831/- (inclusive of cash deposit of Rs.17,24,000/-) in the bank account maintained by the assessee with HSBC Bank, M.G. Road, Mumbai. The assessee neither complied with the 148 notice nor replied to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. An Inspector of the Department was deputed to locate the assessee and serve notice upon him. The Inspector reported that the assessee is absconding and could not be located by him, though it was informed that various charges are being faced by the assessee with regard to fraudulent activities in connection with Lalit Gas Agency. Consequently the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.08.2017 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147/144 of the IT Act after calling the information from HSBC Bank and accordingly made the addition of Rs.53,12,313/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69 of the IT Act being unexplained credits in the bank account as against no return filed by the assessee.
Being aggrieved with the above ex-parte assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and additional evidence paper book along with application for admission of additional evidences furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and when the matter reached before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NAFC has referred the facts of the case which are not relevant to the case of the assessee rather they appears to be related to some other assessee’s appeal. For example, as per Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the impugned addition of Rs.4,05,27,825/- was under challenge and it relates to assessment year 2013-14, whereas the case of the instant assessee pertains to assessment year 2011-12 & the addition of Rs.53,12,313/- only is under challenge. For instance page no.7 of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’s order is reproduced herein below :-
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and in view of cut and paste error in the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant submissions, documents and additional evidences, if any, in support of its contentions before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.