Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : GAUHATI BENCH : GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON’BLE
ORDER
PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT-A”) dated 04.09.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. (i) That the order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts the case. Page 1 of 4 Jagjeet Singh & Sons -Vs- The ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati AY: 2017-18 (ii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by erring in holding that there was delay in filing of appeal, as from the facts it is evident that the appeal was filed within 30 days of receipt of demand notice as mentioned in Form 35 itself. (iii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in facts by observing that the appellant failed to furnish the grounds of appeal
, even though the same was filed with Form-35 and available on the Income Tax Portal. (iv) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the ex-parte assessment made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act without service of any notice, which is against principles of natural justice. (v) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made for difference in gross business as per 26AS and books to the tune of Rs. 68,30,222/-. (vi) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made for difference in other sources income as per 26AS and as per ITR to the tune of Rs. 34,49,021/-. (vii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of treating the Unsecured Loan of Rs. 2,33,41,400/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act/-. (viii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of treating the increase in Sundry Creditors in comparison to previous years to the tune of Rs. 1,26,79,444/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee e-filed his Return of Income on 06.11.2017 showing total income of Rs. 1,14,92,020/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 10.08.2018 which was not responded by the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire was issued on 16.10.2019 asking the assessee to furnish various details / particulars / documents pertaining to the relevant previous year online. However, the assessee did not comply this notice. Notices was further issued to the assessee, but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Show cause notice also did not respond by the assessee. Consequently, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment of the income assessee under section 144
Page 2 of 4 Jagjeet Singh & Sons -Vs- The ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati AY: 2017-18 of the Act. The ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,77,92,110/- on account of mismatch in ITR and 26AS, additional income from other sources, unsecured loans, Sundry creditors etc. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld.
CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 04.09.2024 rejected by observing that the reason stated for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal is not satisfactory. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the grounds of appeal
is not seen attached along with Form 35. With these observations ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
5. We observe that, both the orders of the ld. AO as well as of the ld. CIT(A) were ex-parte orders. Therefore, it is our considered opinion that, the case of the assessee should be remanded to the ld. AO for fresh assessment for the ends of justice. The DR also has no objection in sending of the case of the assessee to the file of the ld. AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 04.09.2024 and remand the case to the ld. AO. We direct the ld. AO to reframe the assessment after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. At the same time, we direct the assessee to substantiate his claims before the ld. AO. Thus, we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes only.