SANDEEP,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)(3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2029/DEL/2024Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 July 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, considering the assessee's counsel's plea of the assessee's ailments and the Revenue's non-objection, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 31,11,275/- to the assessee's income from other sources under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as no submissions were provided, leading the CIT(A) to confirm the AO's order. The assessee subsequently appealed to the ITAT, citing reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without discussing merits and whether the AO's assessment order under section 147 r/w 144B and additions under section 69A were valid, particularly concerning compliance with natural justice and procedural requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.07.2024

Order : 29.07.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 28.02.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Grounds of appeal

1.

taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law by passing an ex-parte order (impugned order) without discussing the merits of the case and dismissing the appeal for non-appearance making the impugned order non-est.

2. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred both in law and on facts in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) r/w section l44B of the Act dated 02.03.2023 which is erroneous and not in accordance with law, hence the same is liable to be annulled.

3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred both in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs.31,11,275/- to the income of the assessee by invoking the provision of section 69 A of the Act and such assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.33,33,505 against the returned income of Rs.2,22,230/-. Hence, addition made by Ld. AO may please be deleted.

4. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in not following the procedure laid down in section 144B of the Act making the impugned assessment order non-est. 5. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred both in law and on facts in not following principles of natural justice making the impugned addition liable to be deleted. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. AO erroneously considered the cash deposits arising from the sales of goods as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act making the addition liable to be deleted. 7. On the facts and circumstances the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts of the case by considering the gift from father of the Appellant as unexplained money u/s 69 A of the Act making the addition liable to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, Assessing Officer made addition on account of income from other sources amounting to Rs.31,11,275/-. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee has not provided any submission, hence he referred to AO’s order and also noted that assessee is not interested in prosecuting appeal and confirmed the AO’s order. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the parties and perused the records.

6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that assessee was suffering from various ailments, hence he could not canvass the case properly before the ld. CIT (A). She pleaded that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee in this regard.

7.

Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection to this proposition. 8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to pass an order afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29TH day of July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →