PAWAN KUMAR, SONEPAT vs. ITO WARD-3, SONIPAT

PDF

ITA 2338/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 September 2024AY 2011-2012Bench: the CIT(A). The assessee furnished additional evidences before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) without seeking any report from the AO on additional evidences filed by the assessee, dismissed the appeal. A close reading of the impugned order reveals that apart from furnishing additional evidences, the assessee did not furnish any other explanation and even failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A).4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2011-12, which was reopened u/s 148 due to significant cash deposits in a savings account. Despite multiple notices u/s 148 and 142(1), the assessee failed to respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 with an addition for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, including additional evidence, without seeking a remand report from the AO.

Held

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation but held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal and rejecting additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with notices.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal and rejecting additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO, especially when the assessment was completed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance.

Sections Cited

148, 142(1), 144, 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 12/09/2024Pronounced: 12/09/2024

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as to 'the CIT(A)’) dated 22.06.2023, for AY 2011-12.

The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are; the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring income of Rs. 1,15,600/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,95,700/-. The assessment for AY 2011-12 was reopened u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act’), on the ground that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 21,90,000/- + Rs. 8,52,000/-in savings bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Khubru, Sonepat. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2018 was issued to the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, multiple notices u/s. 142(1) were issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with the said notices. The assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Act and an addition of Rs. 11,42,603/- was made by Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits. Against the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee furnished additional evidences before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) without seeking any report from the AO on additional evidences filed by the assessee, dismissed the appeal. A close reading of the impugned order reveals that apart from furnishing additional evidences, the assessee did not furnish any other explanation and even failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A).

Ms. Shivani Bansal, representing the department vehemently prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that the assessee has been non cooperative before the AO and the CIT(A). The assessee has failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the AO and CIT(A), hence, no further opportunity of hearing should be allowed to the assessee.