Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return was picked for scrutiny, and a cash deposit of Rs. 32,00,500/- in the bank account was treated as unexplained by the Assessing Officer and taxed. The assessee's subsequent appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-prosecution, despite the assessee claiming to have filed an adjournment request via email, which the CIT(A) allegedly did not consider.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merit and had proceeded ex-parte without taking cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's adjournment request, thereby denying a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
Appellantby Sh.V. Rajakumar, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 08/08/2024 ORDER
PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
This appeal of the Assessment Year (In short, the ‘AY’) 2017-18 preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [In short, the ‘CIT(A)’].
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: - Kamal Kumar Batra “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer (Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax) treating a sum of Rs.32,00,500/- deposited in Bank as unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and taxed as per provision of section 115BBE is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the learned CIT(A) in ignoring letter dated 27/03/2024 requesting for adjournment and all our earlier written submissions dated 03/11/2021 and 23/11/2021 is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
3. That the appellant craved leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/assessee, Proprietor of Hiltop Refrigeration, filed his Income Tax Return (In short, the ‘ITR’) declaring income of Rs.2,09,68,630/- on 31.10.2017. The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequentially, the assessment was completed at income of Rs.2,41,69,130/- vide order dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short,the ‘Act’). The Assessing Officer (In short, the ‘AO’) treated cash deposit of Rs.32,00,500/- in the bank account as unexplained and taxed it accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed it due to non-prosecution.
4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without taking cognizance of the appellant/assessee’s request for adjournment filed through email Kamal Kumar Batra on March, 27 at 5.20 PM. The Ld. AR placed the copy of the email to demonstrate that the appellant/ assessee had duly sought adjournment well in time; however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not take any cognizance of the same and decided the appeal ex-parte. The Ld. AR prayed for setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
The Ld. Sr DR, placing reliance on the finding of the CIT(A), submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had sent the notices on the email provided by the appellant/assessee and therefore, the appellant/ assessee’s request for setting aside the case and restoring the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) had not have any merit. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant/assessee’s non-compliance during the appellate proceedings was similar to that of the non-cognizance of the adjournment application sent through email to the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. From perusal of the appellate order, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit. Hence, in the interest of justice and facts in entirety, we are of the considered view that the appellant/assessee deserves reasonable Kamal Kumar Batra opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non- compliances. In view thereof, without offering any comment on merit of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The appellant/assessee should ensure compliances during the set-aside proceeding before the CIT(A).
In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 08th August, 2024