QAISAR JAN,SRINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, ANAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1777/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer issued only one notice without any record of its service, and the CIT(A) did not provide adequate time for the assessee to submit details. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, proper verification, and to ensure the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing in adherence to natural justice principles.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual dealing in handicrafts, did not file an income tax return. During the demonetization period (November-December 2016), the assessee deposited Rs. 13,58,650 in cash, which the Assessing Officer added back under Section 69A via an ex-parte assessment under Section 144. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order and the CIT(A) order are valid given alleged violations of natural justice, specifically the lack of proper notice service and denial of an adequate opportunity to be heard by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Iqbal, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 29-07- 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax--- (Appeals) - NFAC in passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee, is unjust, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) under Section 250 and by the Ld AO under section 144 of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts, having been passed without giving assessee an Qaisar Jan., A.Y. 2017-18 opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice.

3. That In view of the section 250(4) and 250(5) of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) has acted in contravention of the law while dismissing the case on account of non-prosecution, without discussing/adjudicating the merits of the case.

4. BECAUSE, even after observing in the appellate order that the appeal has been taken up for decision on merits but the Ld. CIT (A) has not considered the ground no 2 to 12 (ANNEXURE ATTACHED).

5.

That the notice issued under Section 142(1) and assessment order passed under Section 144 are illegal bad in law and without jurisdiction as no notice under section 142(1) was served on the assessee of the income tax act 1961. Accordingly notice issued under section and all subsequent proceedings including orders of Ld AO are void ab initio.

6.

That whole of the assessment proceedings is void and bad in law as Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 4, ANAND did not have jurisdiction making the assessment questionable.

7.

Assessee craves right to add, alter or modify any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Total tax effect (see note below)”

3. The assessee is an individual and has not filed return of income. The assessee is engaged in the business of selling handicraft item. The assessee’s case was identified in cash transactions, 2016. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued on 10-03-2018. The reminder letter was issued on 14-06-2019. The Assessing Officer observed that during the demonetization period i.e. from 9th Nov, 2016 to 30th December, 2016, the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 13,58,650/-. The assessment was passed u/s. 144 thereby making an addition of Rs. 13,58,650/- as cash deposits in bank account u/s. 69A of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 13 days, the delay is condoned.

6. The ld. A.R. further submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not file the details before the A.O. as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. A.R. requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication of the issues.

7. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has issued only one notice and has not stated anywhere in the assessment order that the assessee was served with the notice. Beside this, the assessee was not given adequate time to file the details by the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the documents/evidences to be filed before the Assessing Officer and adjudicate the issues as per Income Tax Act. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 3

9.

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

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →