DAYANAND DAMODAR PATIL,VIRAR WEST vs. NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4243/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 November 2024AY 2015-20166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that substantive hearings could not take place before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance. Despite this, the Tribunal sympathetically considered the assessee's AR's plea for restoring the matter in the interest of justice and fair play, especially since the assessee assured future compliance. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issues could not be adjudicated due to the assessee's non-compliance but decided to grant a last opportunity. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. The AO was directed to provide a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee in de novo assessment proceedings, with a stern warning that no further opportunity would be granted in case of further non-compliance. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices and provide requested details without fail.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dayanand Damodar Patil, filed an appeal against the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the assessment order dated 19.03.2022 passed by the ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, under sections 147/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessment order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance and failure to furnish corroborative evidence. The dispute involves an addition of Rs. 2,21,86,186/- on account of unexplained credits and an addition of Rs. 1,31,730/- for a disallowed deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,21,86,186/- made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained credits in the bank account, is valid? - Assessee's contention: The addition is bad-in-law as it represents credits appearing in the bank account, out of which only Rs. 92,04,669/- was reflected in the return of income, leaving a difference of Rs. 2,21,86,186/- as unexplained. The reopening based solely on bank entries is also challenged. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,31,730/- for a deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A is valid? - Assessee's contention: The addition was made due to the absence of supporting documentary evidence, and no proof was furnished. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is bad-in-law? - Assessee's contention: The reopening was based merely on data from the Insight Portal, where the case was flagged by the Investigation Wing for high-risk information regarding substantial credits in bank accounts. Reopening solely for verifying bank entries is not valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Nabera,AR
For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 12.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 11.06.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 19.03.2022 as passed for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16.

A.Y. 2015-16 Dayanand Damodar Patil 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

Ground No. 1: Addition made u/s 68 on account of Unexplained Credits

1.

The learned officer has erred by making the addition of Rs. 2,21,86,186/- as unexplained credits for the period AY: 2015- 16 u/s-68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same has been confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A). The said addition made and confirmed by the officer is bad- in-law, as the sources from where the addition made was from credits appearing in the bank account. The total credit appearing in the bank statement throughout the year was Rs. 3,13,90,855/- out of which the assessee in the return of income has only considered receipts only upto Rs. 92,04,669/- and balance receipts which is the difference between Rs. 3,13,90,855/- and Rs. 92,04,669/- which amounting to Rs. 2,21,86,186/- has been remained unexplained credits and treated as Unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ground No. 2: Addition made deduction claimed under chapter VI-A of sum of Rs. 1,31,730/-

The learned officer has erred by making addition of Rs. 1,31,730/. The only reason for making the addition was the absence of supporting documentary evidence. The only reason for making of the addition was No proof whatsoever has been furnished in support of the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,31,730/-.

A.Y. 2015-16 Dayanand Damodar Patil Ground No. 3: Re-opening is bad-in-law In the present case, the learned assessing officer has re-open the assessment merely based upon data available on the Insight Portal, during the relevant period F.Y. 2014-15, this case was flagged by the Investigation wing on the Insight Portal under High Risk CRIU/VRU information. The bank statements were perused by the officers of Inv. Wing which showed substantial credits in the Bank A/cs. However, re-opening just merely for verifying the credits entries in bank is bad-in-law.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee an individual filed the return showing income from Rental income, Tower Rent and also business income from supplying of building materials and partner in a Firm.

4.

It is noticed that in this case, assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act on account of non-compliance by the assessee to the notices issued by him. Even during appeal proceedings the assessee did not respond earlier but filed a letter with certain enclosures. The ld.CIT(A) in para 5 page-3 of the order has stated that the assessee did not avail opportunities allowed by the AO. Even before him, he failed to furnish any corroborative evidence in support of the ground thus failing to controvert the findings of AO. No evidence or explanation was furnished before him regarding unexplained credit of Rs 2.21 cr in the bank A.Y. 2015-16 Dayanand Damodar Patil accounts. No proof was filed either w.r.t. the claim of deduction of Rs 1,317,30/- either. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal upholding the assessment order.

5.

The assessee has contended that initially, the case was re- opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.As per the data available on the Insight Portal, during the relevant period F.Y. 2014-15, this case was flagged by the Investigation wing on the Insight Portal under High Risk CRIU/VRU information. Information revealed that the assessee was maintaining various bank accounts in Saraswathi Bank, RBL Bank and Bank of Baroda. The bank statements were perused by the officers of Inv. Wing which showed substantial credits in the Bank A/cs. However, the re-opening of the assessment just merely for verification entries in banks is not valid and proper. The learned AO has made the addition of only those receipts which has not been reflecting in the computation of income i.e. Total Receipts/Credit in the bank account less Receipts/Credit that has been consider during the filing of return and balance Receipts/Credit has been considered as Unexplained Credits u/s-68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is harsh and bad-in-law. Further, the amount paid towards LIC premium has also been disallowed due to absence of supporting documentary evidence.

A.Y. 2015-16 Dayanand Damodar Patil 5. When the case was called out for hearing, it was proposed by this Bench to send back the case to the ld.AO as no substantive hearing could take place either before him or the CIT(A).It is apparent that both the authorities have allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing to him which was not properly availed. Such a non-cooperative attitude cannot be appreciated. However, it is also true that the issues in hand could not be adjudicated on account of non compliance by the assessee. We take note of the request of the ld.AR sympathetically in the interest of justice and fair play who has pleaded for restoring the matter and has also assured making necessary compliance to the authorities. The provisions of the Act are not penal in nature and any bonafide omission on part of the assessee should not be used against it. Therefore, a last opportunity of hearing is allowed to him to make proper representation before the authorities. The ld. Assessing officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in the set aside proceedings for de novo assessment. Needless to state, the assessee will comply with notices and any details sought by the assessing authority without fail, as it will not be allowed any further opportunity of hearing in case of any further non-compliance.

A.Y. 2015-16 Dayanand Damodar Patil 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →