Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee retired from SAIL in 2014, receiving ₹ 27,79,943/- as retirement benefits. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment ex-parte for AY 2015-16 due to no return filing and information about a ₹ 39,91,000/- time deposit in the assessee's name at Bank of Baroda, Ranchi. The assessee disputed ownership of the deposit and sought an opportunity to explain.
Held
The Tribunal observed the ex-parte assessment and the CIT(A)'s remand report indicating the bank's non-response regarding the deposit. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard. Any resulting tax demand is to be recovered from the disputed time deposit if the bank remains unresponsive.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment was valid without providing an opportunity to the assessee; The ownership and taxability of a disputed fixed deposit; The need for adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Kamlesh Kumar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10335400 dated 09/08/2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16.
Shri Kamlesh Kumar, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr. DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee retired from SAIL on 30/06/2014. On retirement, the assessee had received ₹ 27,79,943/- as his retirement benefits. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment on the ground that no return was filed. The Assessing Officer had also got information that the assessee has made time deposit worth ₹ 39,91,000/- with Bank of Baroda, Ranchi. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte as the assessee had not P a g e 1 | 3
ITA 06/Ran/2025 Shiv Prasad Ram Vs ITO provided all the details before the Assessing Officer at an amount of ₹ 62,95,535/-. It was a submission that the assessee does not own any time deposit with the Bank of Baroda, Ranchi to the extent of ₹ 39,91,000/- and that the assessee has received his provident fund, leave encashment and other benefits which has totaling to ₹ 27,79,943/-. It was a submission that the assessee may be granted an opportunity to explain the issues before the Assessing Officer.
In reply, the ld. Sr.DR did not raise any serious objections.
We have considered the submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that it is an ex parte order. The information as mentioned by the Assessing Officer also shows that there is a time deposit of ₹ 39,91,000/- in the Bank of Baroda, Ranchi in the name of the assessee. The assessee claims that this does not belong to the assessee. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that a remand report has been called for and at page 06 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order, he has extracted the contentions of the remand report wherein the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the Bank of Baroda, Ranchi has not responded in respect of the notice issued till the date of the remand report. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It is also directed that in the event that there is a tax demand on the assessee, the same shall be attached and recovered from the time deposit of ₹ 39,91,000/- alleged to be found in the name of the assessee with the Bank of Baroda, Ranchi in so far as the bank is not responded to the same. P a g e 2 | 3
ITA 06/Ran/2025 Shiv Prasad Ram Vs ITO
In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 21st August, 2025.