ASHOK KESHAVLAL DHAKAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3265/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (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 acknowledged the assessee's conduct was negligent but considered the assessee's circumstances and the failure of the Ld. Commissioner to decide on merits. The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of income from other sources. The assessee challenged these additions before the Ld. Commissioner but made no compliance despite notices, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The assessee, a senior citizen with family responsibilities and medical issues, claims lack of proper advice and unavailability of documents caused non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner's ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution, without deciding on merits, was justified and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present additional evidence due to reasonable cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B),Section 56

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Rajora, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, Sr. DR

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.04.2024, 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. 2018-19.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 29.04.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.3,97,528/- and Rs.20,26,658/- respectively on account of income from other sources u/s 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act and other sources u/s 56 of the Act.

Mr. Ashok Keshavlal Dhakan 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of sending various notices by the Ld. Commissioner, made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee by an ex- parte order and consequently dismissed the same for non prosecution but not on merits.

4.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. No doubt the conduct of the Assessee seems to be negligent as it appears from the impugned order and therefore the Assessee do not deserve any leniency. However, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessee is a senior citizen of age about 65 years and living with his wife and mother who is more than 90 years old and is a catena patient and the Assessee do not have any children who can look after the Assessee and his wife and his mother and as the tax consultant did not advise the Assessee to file the relevant documents pertaining to the issue involved in the case before the lower authorities and even otherwise some of the documents were not available at the time of passing of the assessment order, hence the same could not be filed before the AO. However, the present Ld. Counsel has advised the Assessee to file the relevant documents and therefore the Assessee is filing the relevant documents as additional evidence before the Tribunal which are essential and therefore the same may be taken on record to decide the issue in appeal on merits. The Assessee was prevented by reasonable clause in adducing the evidences during the proceedings before the authorities below.

5.1 We have given thoughtful considerations to the submission of the Assessee. As the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the issues involved on merits and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim before the Ld. Commissioner.

6.

We also direct the Assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essentially 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.

7.

Thus, the case is remanded accordingly.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →