Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,49,56,133/- as unexplained money. The assessee challenged this before the Commissioner but failed to comply with opportunities for response. Consequently, the Commissioner affirmed the addition, dismissing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the peculiar facts and the undertaking given by the assessee's counsel to provide necessary documents, decided to remand the case.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be remanded for fresh consideration by the Commissioner due to the assessee's non-compliance but subsequent undertaking to provide documents.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.12.2018, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12, 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act has made the addition of Rs. 4,49,56,133/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.
The assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of granting opportunities through video conference, made no compliance and therefore, the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances and in the absence of relevant reply and documents, which the assessee failed to file, decided the appeal on the basis of material available on the record and by taking into consideration the assessment order and ultimately affirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
The assessee being aggrieved challenged the impugned order before and on being asked specifically Ld. Counsel of the assessee “as to why the assessee could not avail the video conference facilities despite of affording opportunities”, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to mis-communication or lack of knowledge, the assessee missed the opportunities, however now undertakes to join the proceedings and to file the relevant reply and documents, if the opportunity is given to the assessee.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee and supported the impugned order, by submitting that the same does not suffers from any perversity or impropriety and/or illegality.
We have heard the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the rival contention of the parties and perused the material on record. From the conduct of the assessee it prima facie appears that the assessee has non-compliant tendency and therefore, the assessee does not deserve any leniency, however considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality, as the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of relevant reply/document, could not decide the case in its right prospective and proper manner and as now the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has given undertaking and assurance on behalf of the Assessee to comply with the notices and to file the relevant reply and documents, which would be essentially required by the Ld. Commissioner, hence for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. Hence the case is remanded accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.10.2024.