SUNIL KUMAR VERMA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), BAREILLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 69/LKW/2021Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 November 2022AY 2011-20113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders. While the assessee also had some fault, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file an ITR for AY 2010-11 and did not explain cash deposits and RTGS credits in his bank account. Both the assessment order by the AO and the order by the CIT(A) were ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, which did not allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard and failed to discuss merits, are sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, DR
Hearing: 28/11/2022Pronounced: 29/11/2022

Appellant by Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Shri Amit Nigam, DR Date of hearing 28/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/11/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH:

This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bareilly in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bareilly/10478/2019-20 dated 13-08-2020. The assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bareilly for the assessment year 2010-11 u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide his order dated 21-12-2017. At the outset, the ld. counsel stated that the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte and even on merits the CIT(A) has not discussed anything except by giving a cryptic finding in Para 6, which reads as under:

6. From the perusal of the facts available on record it is evident that the above appeal is devoid of merit as the appellant failed to file his ITR for the AY 2010-11 despite depositing cash amounting to Rs.35,40,000/- in his bank account and getting credit of Rs.45,00,000/- through RTGS in his bank account. The appellant failed to explain the sources of above cash deposits and credit entry either before the AO during the assessment proceeding or during the appellate proceeding. Thus, the above additions made by the AO are completely justified.

2.

The ld. counsel stated that the AO has also framed ex-parte assessment and has not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When this fact is confronted to the ld. Sr. DR, he could not controvert the above fact situation.

3.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the case, we noticed that there is unexplained cash deposit to the tune of Rs.80.40 lacs added by AO as unexplained u/s. 69 of the Act and also addition of interest of Rs.8,532/-. It is clear that the assessment order is ex-parte and even the order of ld. CIT(A) is also ex-parte. Admittedly, there is some fault on the part of the assessee also and he has not responded to the notices issued at least four times by ld. CIT(A), it means that Revenue is not at complete fault but in the interest of justice that there should be substantial justice and substantial issue should be decided based on facts available on record as well as the CIT(A) or AO also could have gathered the information. In the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities i.e. the ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the assessee will represent before the AO and will cooperate in providing information so that the AO can reach to proper conclusion according to law in deciding this issue of unexplained cash deposit including interest. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →