SURINDER KUMAR,JALALABAD (W) vs. ITO WARD 2(4), ABOHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 92/ASR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 April 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the issues were not discussed on merit. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed against an ex-parte assessment order and an ex-parte appellate order. The appellant argued that the case was not discussed on merit by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed without considering the merits of the case and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 17.03.2025Pronounced: 11.04.2025

Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year: 2017-18.

2.

Grounds of appeal taken by the assesseeare as under:

“1. That the impugned order is bad both on facts and law.

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly and Illegally upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO by passing an ex-parte order appellant an opportunity of being heard and confirmed addition amounting to Rs 21,16,031/- by invoking the provisions of section 69A and taxing the same u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

That the Ed. CIT(A) failed to confirm the delivery of the notices to the appellant and an made ex-parte order assuring the service of notices. without

4. That the Ed. CIT(A) wrongly and illegally upheld the addition of Rs 21,16,031/- on account of cash deposit in bank account during demonetization period against the facts and circumstances of the case and after ignoring that the appellant is maintaining regular books of including cash book and bank book. accounts

5. That the Appellant craves permission to add, amend, elucidate any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. At the very outset, the counsel of the assessee brought before the bench during proceedings before us that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is an ex-parte order and the ld. CIT(A) has also therefore, argued that the case has not been discussed or assessed on merit before the lower authorities.

4.

The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel regarding this order being an ex-parte order both before the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings as well as before the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings.

6.

Thus, we find that the issues in this case have not been discussed on merit after due consideration of assessee’s submission.

7.

Therefore, keeping in view, the element of natural justice with the assessee, we are inclined to remand this appeal back to the file of the A.O. for passing an order de-novo after giving adequate opportunities to the assessee of being heard as well as to allow him to file written submissions if any. The assessee will have all the legal issues before him. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the department for completion of proceedings before authorities below. purposes.

Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 11.04.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Udayan Dasgupta) (Krinwant Sahay) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →