Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The CIT(A) rejected additional evidence concerning cash deposits, noting the assessee's non-compliance with assessment notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), and held that the assessee was not covered under Rule 46A(1) despite claims of ill health. The Ld. DR supported the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) possesses co-terminus power to redo the assessment by accepting additional evidence. For the sake of complete justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of cash deposits and rejected evidence back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to redo the assessment de novo, providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Rejection of additional evidence by CIT(A) related to cash deposits due to alleged non-compliance with assessment notices and the scope of CIT(A)'s power to admit such evidence and redo the assessment.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Rule 46A(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN
Date of hearing 30.05.2024 Date of pronouncement 14.08.2024 ORDER PER S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The present appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, order dated 27.12.2023.
It is observed that the name mentioned in the order passed u/s 250 of the Act is enclosed under Vijender Jain whereas the appeal memo it is mentioned as Vijender Kumar Jain. Since the PAN No. is same we are proceeding with the adjudication of the appeal as the same assessee.
At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is ex-parte and the assessee filed the appeal before NFAC raising several grounds and filed additional evidences in support of cash deposits made by the assessee in DCBL Bank. However, Ld.CIT rejected the additional evidences with observation that assessee was unwell during assessment proceedings. However, he could have taken help of the AR/CA to furnish details in response to various notices issued during assessment proceedings. He observed that in view of the above facts, in his considered view non- compliance to the notice issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act cannot be attributed to ill health of the assessee. Therefore, he held that assessee is not covered under any clauses of rule 46A(1). Accordingly rejected the additional evidence submitted by the assessee by and in support of his views. Ld. AR prayed that this issue may be remitted back to AO to appreciate the facts on record.
On the other hand the Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authority and submitted that the assessee has not utilized various opportunities given during assessment proceedings. He supported the findings of Learned CIT(A) for rejecting the additional evidence. 2
Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We observed that due to ill health the assessee has not responded to any of the notices during assessment proceedings and issue under consideration is relating to cash deposits in his bank account and Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the additional evidence submitted before him with the observation that the assessee has not complied with the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In our considered view Ld. CIT(A) has co-terminus power to redo the assessment himself by accepting the additional evidences. Considering the additions made by the AO and for the sake of complete justice we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of jurisdictional Assessing Officer to redo the assessment de novo after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statical purpose.