RATAN JODHARAM HARCHWANI,ULHASNAGAR vs. ACIT, CC-4, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 656/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 September 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had issued notices but the assessee failed to respond. However, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the cash amount deposited during demonetization as unexplained and estimated commission income. The assessee claimed they did not receive hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merit when notices were not responded to by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26-12-2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in short Ld.CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year (AY.) 2017-18, raising following grounds:

“1. On the facts and under circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the cash amount of Rs. 11,66,250/- deposited in the bank account during demonetization period as unexplained cash credits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

On the facts and under circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the estimation of Commission Income at the rate of 1 percent of credit entries of Rs. 51,35,47,080/- appearing in the Bank Account.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte without any finding on the merit and, therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) should be set aside and restored back for deciding afresh.

3.

We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) had issued three notices dt. 06-01-2021, 07-11-2023 and 29-11-2023. However, all the three notices were not responded by the assessee. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit of the assessee, wherein it has been deposed that no notice for hearing was received by the assessee either by post/courier or on the e-mail mentioned in the Form-35. We are of the opinion that despite non-compliance on the part of the assessee, under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟), the Ld.CIT(A) is required to pass order on the merit of the issue raised in grounds of the appeal. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and dismissed the appeal for non compliance on the part of the assessee in responding the notices, therefore, we feel appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merit and pass a speaking and reasoned order on the grounds raised in the appeal. We may also like to mention that in Form-36, the assessee has mentioned another e-mail ID as „hiranandandassociates@gmail.com‟. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) may send notices on both the e-mail IDs; i.e., the e-mail ID mentioned in Form-35 and the e-mail ID mentioned in Form-36 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The grounds raised

by the assessee in the appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →