MANOSH ASOPA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 71(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3727/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without framing points of determination or providing detailed findings as required by Section 250(6). Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present their case and raise all legal and factual arguments.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13, which affirmed the Assessing Officer's action of treating cash deposits of Rs. 13,94,500/- as unexplained under Section 68, initiated via Section 147 proceedings. The Revenue contended that the assessee had been non-cooperative in the proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the confirmation of cash deposits as unexplained under Section 68 and the procedural deficiency of the CIT(A) in passing an ex-parte order without proper findings as per Section 250(6).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 140A,Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Manmohan Asopa, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/12/2024Pronounced: 24/12/2024

O R D E R

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 26.07.2024 in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067067624(1), in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It is emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s has passed it’s ex-parte lower appellate order affirming the Assessing Officer action herein initiating Section 140A/ 147 proceedings thereby treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs. 13,94,500/-, as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act on legality as well as on merits. 4. Mr. Bansal vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the assessee has been all along non-cooperative and therefore, the impugned addition ought to be sustained. Page | 1

5.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee's pleadings and Revenue's vehement contentions. It transpires that the ld CIT(A)/ NFAC in the lower appellate adjudication in this factual background has neither framed any points of determination nor any detailed findings thereupon as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act.

6.

This being a clinching case, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh and appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove it’s case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. It is further clarified that the assessee shall indeed be at liberty to raise all his legal and factual arguments in consequential proceedings which would be dealt with in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →