Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged additions made for AY 2017-18 under section 68 read with Section 115BBE for cash deposits during demonetization (Rs. 77,70,500) and disallowance of statutory dues (Rs. 63,652). The lower appellate authority, CIT(A), passed an ex parte order without framing points of determination or detailed adjudication as required.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly adjudicate the assessee's substantive grievances. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh appropriate adjudication, with the assessee responsible for proving all relevant facts within three opportunities of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by lower authorities under Section 68 and Section 115BBE and disallowance of statutory dues were valid when the CIT(A) failed to conduct a detailed adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 250(6), Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi’s DIN and order no.
ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/10633705123(1), dated 30.03.2024, in case no.
10444/2019-20, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. correctness of both lower authorities’ action in making section 68 read with Section 115BBE addition of Rs. 77,70,500/-, representing cash deposit made during demonetization followed by disallowance of Rs. 63,652/- in the nature of statutory dues for want of compliance of necessary details, it emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s impugned ex parte lower appellate discussion has neither framed any point of determination thereupon nor detailed adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act.
Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently submits that the assessee had been offered enormous opportunities of hearing as is evident from page 2 para 5 of the lower appellate discussion. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it was indeed incumbent for the learned CIT(A) to have decided the assessee’s corresponding substantive grievance in the foregoing terms. We, thus, deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law, subject to a rider that it shall be taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.
Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2024.