SUDHAKR PURUSHOTTAM KARANDIKAR,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,20,000/- on account of unexplained income from investment in HDFC Mutual Fund. The Assessee challenged this before the FAA but failed to comply with notices, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's non-compliance but noted that the FAA also failed to decide the issue on merit. To ensure a just decision and substantial justice, the case is remanded to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the Assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate their claim.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, providing the Assessee with an opportunity to present their case, despite previous non-compliance and an ex-parte assessment order.
Sections Cited
144, 147
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 19.01.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals)/First Appellate Authority (in short “FAA”)], for the A.Y. 2012-13.
2 ITA No.638/M/2023 Shri Sudhakar Purshottam Karandikar
In the instant case the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 13.11.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short “Act”) has made the addition of Rs.13,20,000/- on account of un- explained income on investment in units of HDFC Mutual Fund.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. FAA, however in spite of sending three notices, made no compliance, therefore, in the absence of any reply and documentary evidence, the Ld. FAA was constrained to dismiss the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution.
The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The conduct of the Assessee prima facie appears to be non- compliant and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency. Considering the fact the Ld. FAA in the absence of reply/documents failed to decide the issue involved in the instant appeal on merit and in its right perspective and appropriate manner and therefore for granting one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim and for the decision on merit by the Ld. FAA, we are inclined to remand this case to the file of Ld. FAA, however considering the peculiar facts again, as the assessment order is also an ex-parte passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and therefore for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim.
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the AO accordingly.
3 ITA No.638/M/2023 Shri Sudhakar Purshottam Karandikar
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.
