Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer computed the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,20,84,700/-, significantly higher than the declared income. The Assessee challenged this addition before the Ld. Commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order before the stipulated date for the Assessee to file written submissions, deeming it a blatant error. Considering this and for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in passing an order before the due date for submission of Assessee's written arguments, thus denying a proper opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148, 44AD, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the orders dated 29.04.2024, 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. 2016-17.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 26.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act has computed the income of Assessee at Rs.1,20,84,700/- as against the declared income of Rs.7,95,340/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively on account of business and from other sources by filing return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO also made the addition of Rs.1,12,86,860/- as undisclosed business income on presumptive income u/s 44AD of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid addition before the Ld. Commissioner, who by recording in the impugned order “that notices or communications were sent to the Assessee on 12.06.2023, 10.04.2024 and 18.04.2024, however, there has been no response from the Assessee till date”, ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and affirmed the addition.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has demonstrated that vide notice dated 18.04.2024 issued by the Ld. Commissioner u/s 250 of the Act, the Assessee was asked to furnish the written submission on or before 30.04.2024, however, the Ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order on 29.04.2024 itself which is before the date given for filing the written submissions and therefore this is blatant error and dents the authenticity of the impugned order. The Ld. D.R. though supported the impugned order but did not refute the aforesaid claim of the Assessee. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality and for the just decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order herein and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim.
We also direct the Assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus, the impugned order is set aside and case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.08.2024.