Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a dairy cattle broker, did not file ITR for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20. The AO reopened the case under Section 147, making additions for estimated profit on significant cash withdrawals and unexplained investment in a motor vehicle under Section 69. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex parte due to the assessee's non-prosecution, leading to further penalties under Sections 270A, 271AAC(1), and 272A(1)(d).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, noting the assessee's lack of legal expertise and the violation of natural justice due to ex parte orders, remanded all eight cases back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-adjudicate the matters after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the assessee.
Key Issues
The key issues included the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the JAO and ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A), substantial additions made by the AO for estimated profit on cash withdrawals and unexplained investment, and the imposition of various penalties, all alleged to be in violation of natural justice and without jurisdiction.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 151A, 69, 270A, 271AAC(1), 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
आदेश/ORDER These eight appeals are filed against the order dated 18-07-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
The grounds of appeals are as under:-
1. 1. 1. A.Y. 2018-19 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, as the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, both the lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- estimating profit of 8% on cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,40,33,700/- during the year under appeal is bad-in-law, illegal and deserves to be deleted.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, both the lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act is bad-in-law, illegal and deserves to be deleted. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect 41,78,839/-”
A.Y. 2018-19 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as in law, both the lower authorities have erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 2,42,615/- u/s 270A of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.
3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 2,42,615/-”
A.Y. 2018-19 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as in law, both the lower authorities have erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 1,12,218/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.
3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 1,12,218/-”
A.Y. 2018-19 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as in law, both the lower authorities have erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.
3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40,000/-”
A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, as the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022 dtd. 29-03-2022, requires to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, which is in to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, both the lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 18,47,904/- estimating profit of 8% on cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,30,98,800/- during the year under appeal is bad-in-law, illegal and deserves to be deleted.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, both the lower authorities erred in making addition treating cash of Rs. 18,70,300/- being unexplained money is bad-in-law, illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5 Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect 12,17,221/-”
A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as in law, both the lower authorities have erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 1,90,773/- u/s 270A of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.
3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 1,90,773/-”
A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as in law, both the lower authorities have erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 15,732/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20
3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 15,732/-”
A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as in law, both the lower authorities have erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.
3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 40000/-”
These are identical cases, therefore, the facts of is taken firstly. The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Dairy Cattles and did not file the return of income during the year under consideration. The assessee is having brokerage income for supply of Dairy Cattles and is registered Dairy Cattle broker of Vadodara JillaSahakariDudhUtpadakSangh Ltd., Vadodara. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee carried out following transactions during the period relevant to A.Y. 2018-19:
Sr. No. Description of transaction Transaction period Amount (Rs.) 1 Cash deposit in current a/c F.Y. 2017-18 2,78,000 2 Cash withdrawals in current a/c F.Y. 2017-18 2,19,39,700 3 Time Deposit F.Y. 2017-18 2,11,000 4 Sale of Motor Vehicle F.Y. 2017-18 18,70,300 The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 05.04.2022. The assessee did not respond the said notice. Thereafter, statutory notices were issued but the same were also not responded. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond the notices except on one occasion wherein the assessee sought adjournment, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
The Ld. AR submitted that there is delay of 57 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee filed the affidavit and application for condonation of delay. The delay appears to be genuine, hence delay is condoned.
The Ld. AR submitted and prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer, so that the assessee can represent his case thereby filing the details before the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. DR vehemently oppose the same, submitting therein that despite giving several opportunity, the assessee did not respond the notices before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A).
Heard both the sides and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is not well versed with the law and because of which could not represent his case properly before both the Revenue authorities. But the assessee also did not file the requisite details before the authorities, therefore, the assessee is directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- in appeal to the “Prime Minister’s Relief Fund” within the period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification of the issues and decide the matter to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. It is further directed to the assessee that the assessee will not take unnecessary adjournment and will fully co- operate with the proceeding. If assessee fails to do so, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per Income Tax Statute. Since all the appeals are identical, similar directions follow in all the appeals.
In result, all 8 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.