Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an AO's reassessment under sections 144/147 for AY 2012-13, which included an addition of Rs. 15,30,000 for unexplained cash deposits and interest under sections 234A/234B. The assessee contended they could not make submissions to the AO or CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices, resulting in an ex-parte order and dismissal of their appeal in limine without a decision on merits.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to utilize opportunities provided by the lower authorities but, in the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity for being heard. The case is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with the assessee required to cooperate with the Assessing Officer's proceedings.
Key Issues
Validity of reassessment proceedings under sections 144/147, confirmation of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 15,30,000, charging of interest u/s 234A/234B, and dismissal of appeal in limine by CIT(A).
Sections Cited
144, 147, 151, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
Assessee by Shri Sumit Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 10/05/2024 ORDER
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 27/09/2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 144/147 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,30,000/- as unexplained by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,30,000/- as unexplained when the deposit in the bank account is out of genuine sources.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. AR briefly submitted the facts in this case and agreed that Assessing Officer sent several notices, but assessee could not make submission before him, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 r. w. section 147 of the Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Further, he agreed that several opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A) as well and assessee could not represent his case due to non-receipt of the notices, however, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without deciding the issue on merits. He submitted that the assessee has not proved the source of cash deposit in his bank account. He prayed that this issue may be remitted back to file of Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A).
However, he agreed that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte order.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On a perusal of the assessment order and First Appellate Authority order, we find that even though the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. We observed that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee based on the information available on record.
Considering the totality of facts and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we are of the view that this matter should go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th May, 2024.