PERVEZ KHODAYAR RAISI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(2), MUMBAI, TARDEO, GRANT ROAD (W), MUMBAI

ITA 4369/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-201813 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the NFAC was liable to be set aside and was not legally sustainable. The primary reason was the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appeal was decided ex parte without affording the appellant an effective opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation, supported by an affidavit, that the non-compliance with notices was inadvertent due to a change in chartered accountants and the assessee's ill health. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not file a counter-affidavit to controvert these reasons. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 06.10.2023 and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide it afresh after giving an effective opportunity to the appellant within 90 days. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the AO or the issue of adjustment of cash against advance tax liability, as these were not adjudicated due to the procedural defect.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pervez Khodayar Raisi, is an individual. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. The appeal challenges the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) order. The AO treated an amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- found in the assessee's possession and offered as business income in the return, as unexplained other income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and levied tax under section 115BBE. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed without a hearing. The assessee contends that non-compliance with NFAC notices was inadvertent due to a change in chartered accountants and the assessee's ill health. The amount in dispute is Rs. 1,10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard, considering the non-compliance with notices was inadvertent and bona fide? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the AO erred in treating the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as unexplained income and levying tax under section 115BBE of the Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of Section 69A and Section 115BBE). 3. Whether the NFAC erred in not allowing the adjustment of cash found and seized against the advance tax liability for the year under consideration? (Question of law, concerning the application of Section 132B). Assessee's contentions: The NFAC order is bad in law as it was passed without a hearing, and the non-compliance was inadvertent due to change of auditors and the assessee's ill health. The AO erred in treating the cash as unexplained income and invoking Section 115BBE. The assessee should have been allowed to adjust the seized cash against advance tax liability. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the merits of the case, but it notes that the revenue did not file a counter-affidavit to the assessee's affidavit explaining the non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 246A,Section 132B,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul Sarda
For Respondent: Shri. H. M. Bhatt (Sr. D.R.)

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):

1.

The assessee has instituted the present appeal for the A. Y. 2017-18 wherein the Appellant has challenged the order dated 06.10.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - Parvez Khodayar Raisi

Inability of the Appellant to file submissio

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →