Loading judgment…
Facts
The case involves multiple appeals by different assessees for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, challenging CIT(A) orders which originated from assessments made under sections 143(3) read with 147 of the Income Tax Act. The primary grievance was the non-consideration of written submissions and evidence by the first appellate authority, particularly regarding cash deposits claimed as converted foreign exchange income (capital/asset, not income). The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which the Tribunal condoned.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) in Goa did not have the opportunity to verify the submissions transferred from the CIT(A) Bengaluru, leading to an addition sustained without proper verification and adjudication. It concluded that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, thus violating natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the sustained additions and remanded the matter back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication, directing them to provide three effective hearings.
Key Issues
Whether the first appellate authority's failure to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, regarding cash deposits from converted foreign exchange, violated principles of natural justice and rendered the sustained addition invalid.
Sections Cited
Section 253(1), Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 147, Rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
Appearances Assessee by: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned bunch of appeals of different assessee’s filed u/s 253(1) of the Act of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders passed by The Commission of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A), Goa’] u/s 250 of the Act involving twin assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 [‘AY’] which emanated respectively from separate orders passed u/s 143(3)/143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 6 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 2. The primary grievance in the present appeals revolves around non consideration of written submission & evidences placed in appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority.
Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical and since arising out of a common search, on rival party’s request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed-off by this common & consolidated order.
In adjudicating these matters together, the first appeal listed at Sr No 1 viz; is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeals listed at Sr. No 2 to 4.
The appeals listed at Sr. No 1 to 2 and Sr. No 3 to 4 filed with a delay of 1645 days & 1576 days ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 6 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. The reasons behind belated filing is explained through affidavit dt. 23/04/2024. After vouching facts & circumstances concerning delay, affidavit and medical reports etc., and the reasons & their sufficiency, we are satisfied that the delay in filing appeals was accidental & undeliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing appeals within statutory period. As these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], we therefore after placing reliance on former judicial precedents, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the said delay and advanced to adjudicate limited issue of violation of principle of natural justice. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 6 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 6. Without touching merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concerning non-considering the evidential material placed before Ld. CIT(A) and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law, which are forewarned to the parties for their rebuttal.
7. As we note that, as against the order of assessment dt. 05/02/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the deceased assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-12, Bangalore [‘Ld. CIT(A), Bengaluru’] on 08/03/2016. In response to notices issued in first appellate proceedings the deceased assessee through its representative made written submissions physically vide letter dt. 14/06/2017 and further through registered post vide ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 6 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 letter dt. 31/12/2016 & 04/0/2018. These replies were made accompany therewith evidences in support of claim that the cash deposits into bank accounts were solely out of conversion of foreign exchange income brought to India on his home visit, thus representing capital/asset and not income. The proceedings on the request of the deceased assessee was transferred to the Ld. CIT(A), Goa, however all previous submission made before Ld. CIT(A), Bengaluru remained to be part of transferred records. Therefore at the time of passing by the impugned order dt. 29/08/2019 the Ld. CIT(A), Goa had no occasion to vouch those missing submissions. Thus the impugned addition sustained in first appeal is devoid of verification & adjudication. In view thereof the Revenue could hardly object the appellant’s request for setting-aside impugned addition for a limited purpose of verification. ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 6 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 8. Placing reliance on ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]’, we are of the view that, the impugned adjudication is unjust as the deceased assessee/appellant was deprived of reasonable opportunity to produce all relevant evidences to establish that cash deposits were made out of conversion of forex money bought on home visit to India. In view thereof, we set-aside the sustained impugned addition for its remand with a direction to adjudicate the same in accordance with law after according three effective hearings to the appellant.
The grounds, stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In result, these appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned hereinbefore.