Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- for unexplained cash deposited in the bank as the assessee failed to comply with notices. Subsequently, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's order by dismissing the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution.
Held
The ITAT noted the assessee's submission that notices did not reach them due to a wrong email ID and sought an opportunity to present their case. With no objection from the Revenue, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Violation of principles of natural justice; legality of reopening of assessment u/s 147; addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- for unexplained time deposit; initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F.
Sections Cited
147, 271(1)(c), 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 22.09.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “GROUND NO. I: THE ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the principles of natural justice were not violated during the reassessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings.
2. The Appellant prays that the order passed by the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) be held as illegal having been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice which are applicable to all the income-tax proceedings and mandate that the Appellant be given a fair opportunity of hearing before making any addition/disallowance.
3. The Appellant accordingly prays that the matter be set aside either to the Ld. AO or to the Ld. CIT(A). Alternatively, the Appellant prays that the Appellant be permitted to file additional evidence before the Hon'ble Tribunal to substantiate her appeal through the relevant documents.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I GROUND NO. II: REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BAD IN LAW
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the re-opening of the-assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law.
2. The Appellant prays that the re-assessment u/s 147 be held to be void ab initio and/or otherwise bad-in-law.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I & II GROUND NO. III: ADDITION OF RS. 22,00,000/-.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of making addition of Rs.22,00,000/- to the total income of the Appellant on account of unexplained Time Deposit in bank.
2. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 22,00,000 to the income of the Appellant ought to be deleted.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I & II GROUND IV: INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(c) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1){c).
2. The Appellant humbly prays that penalty proceedings be dropped against the Appellant.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I & II GROUND V: INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271F.
The Appellant humbly prays that penalty proceedings be dropped against the Appellant.”
In this case, Assessing Officer in an ex-parte order made addition of Rs.22,00,000/- being cash deposited in the bank. AO noted that no compliance has been made by the assessee to the notices.
Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee has not responded to the notices, hence he confirmed the AO’s order by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
Against his order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the parties and perused the records.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notices from the Revenue department could not reach the assessee as the email id was wrong. He prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to canvass the appeal.
Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection to this proposition.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue to the file of AO.
AO shall decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of April, 2024.