Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,30,000/- for unexplained cash deposits in a bank account during assessment year 2017-18, under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld this addition ex-parte due to alleged non-compliance by the assessee, who claimed not to have received the notices and faced challenges in presenting the case properly before the AO.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's claim of not receiving notices, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appeal orders violated natural justice, and if the addition for unexplained cash deposits, applicability of Section 115BBE, and levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C were justified.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 115BBE, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
Order : 25.07.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 08.01.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal
taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That on facts and in law the order dated 03rd December 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the "AO"} is bad in law and void ab initio.
2. That on facts and in law the impugned order dated 08th January 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"} is bad in law and void ab initio.
3. That on facts and in law the AO and CIT(A) have erred in passing their orders ex-parte i.e by violating principals of natural justice.
4. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred upholding an addition to total income of Rs. 13,30,000/- alleging that nature and source of cash deposits remains unexplained. 5. That on facts and in law the AO / CIT(A) have erred in making / upholding the impugned addition premised suspicion, conjectures and surmises. 6. That on facts and in law the AO / CIT(A) have erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 7. That on facts and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 2340 are bad in law.” 3. In this case, in an order passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.13,30,000/- on account of cash deposit in bank. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that there is no compliance to the notices. He proceeded to uphold 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 stated that there were genuine reasons for which assessee could not canvass the case properly before the AO. As regards ld. CIT (A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice remained on the portal and it was never received by the assessee, hence he prayed that opportunity may be granted to the assessee to canvass the case properly.
Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any serious objection to this proposition.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue to the file of AO. AO 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 25th day of July, 2024 after the conclusion of the hearing.