RAJENDRA SINGH RICHPAL SINGH RATHORE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(1), PALGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3948/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 October 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. For substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a decision on merits, providing a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessee's appeal against the order dated 06.06.2024 was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. Commissioner for non-prosecution, not on merits. Additions of Rs.79,86,308/- and Rs.11,50,000/- were made on account of cash deposits as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the case should be remanded for a decision on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Jain, A.R
For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.06.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.

Shri Rajendra Singh Richpal Singh Rathore 2. In the instant case vide assessment order dated 26.12.2018 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, the additions of Rs.79,86,308/- & Rs.11,50,000/- have been made on account of cash deposits as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner however in spite of granting multiple opportunities as observed by the Ld. Commissioner in para-no.4 of the impugned order, the Assessee did not respond to the same and therefore considering the non-compliant conduct of the Assessee, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and ultimately dismissed the same for non-prosecution but not on merits of the case.

3.

We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. From the impugned order, it appears that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limine but not decided the appeal on the merits and therefore for the just decision of the case and for substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the case of the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →