PANETAR SAREE,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3 2 KALYAN, KALYAN
Facts
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 14,63,000 on account of unexplained cash deposits to the Assessee's income. The Assessee challenged this addition before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner but failed to provide compliance despite multiple notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's non-compliance but also observed that the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner decided the appeal ex-parte without properly considering the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the Assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case despite previous non-compliance, and if the ex-parte decision by the lower authority was justified.
Sections Cited
144(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, 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 28.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld.
Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld.
Addl./Joint Commissioner”) for the A.Y. 2015-16.
2 ITA No.2184/M/2024 M/s. Panetar Saree
In the instant case the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated
19.12.2017 u/s 144(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the
Act’) has made the addition of Rs.14,63,000/- on account of
unexplained sources of cash deposits. The Assessee, being
aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Addl./Joint
Commissioner, however, in spite of sending three notices, made no
compliance. Therefore, the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner decided
the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and ultimately by dismissing
the same affirmed the addition. From the impugned order, the
conduct of the Assessee appears to be non-compliant and therefore
the Assessee do not deserve any leniency, however, considering the
specific fact that the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner in the absence of
reply/documents failed to decide the issue involved in the instant
appeal in its right perspective and proper manner, hence for the just
decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to afford
one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim
before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner. Consequently, the case is
remanded to the file of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner for
decision afresh, 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. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Ld.
Addl./Joint Commissioner accordingly.
3 ITA No.2184/M/2024 M/s. Panetar Saree
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
