Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 02.11.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the impugned order of addition made by the Ld. AO under the Assessment proceedings.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred issuing three notices in the month of September 2023 and rejected the appeal whereas the appeal was filed in Feb 2020 and no notice were issued previously.
4. That the assessee filed the Audited Balance Sheet wherein Net Profit is being calculated. The Learned Assessing Officer made the addition without pointing out any shortcoming in the Audited Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet hence the order is bad in law.
Page 2 of 5 5. That the Learned Officer made the addition of Rs.13,38,000/- as unexplained money however the sum was duly recorded in the Books of Accounts, hence the order is bad in law and facts and should be quashed.
That the Scheme notified u/s 143(3A) covers the assessment to be made u/s 143(3) hence the order passed u/s 144 by way of e-assessment is bad in law and should be deleted.
That the assessee filed audit report declaring Income at Rs. 18,14,923/- after incorporating the deposit of Rs.13,38,000/- during Demonetization Period. Adding amount further is double addition hence the order is bad and the order should be deleted.
8. That the Learned Officer wrongly treated cash withdrawn and re- deposited as unexplained money, hence the order is bad in facts and should be deleted.
9. That the Learned Officer accepted NP of the Audited Profit and Loss Account despite he made addition of Rs. 13,38,000/- as unexplained money hence the order is bad.
That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Thus, the addition is bad in law and should be deleted.
11. That the Assessee craves leave to raise any other ground on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order of the CIT(Appeal) is bad.”
The assessee has taken multiple grounds but the only effective ground is against sustaining the addition of Rs.13,38,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short).
The present appeal is barred by limitation for 46 days. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee did not receive order it came only on 14.02.2024. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee prayed for condonation of delay and reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative contended that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.
Page 3 of 5 4. Heard, the Ld. Representatives of the parties. The contention of the assessee is that he was not aware of the passing of the impugned order and the assessee came to know about the factum of the impugned order only on 14.02.2024. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC).
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the submissions available on record. Considering the explanation regarding delay and the facts on record in the interest of principles of natural justice delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
6. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case it was informed to the Assessing Officer through “Annual Information Returns” (AIR) by the concerned bank that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.13,38,000/- in cash in his bank account nos. 20298730000026 & 2029100000637 held with HDFC Bank during the demonetization period. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the return of income in respect of A.Y. 2017-18 by 31.03.2018. It is noted by assessing authority that no return was filed. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer by way of best judgment u/s 144 of the Act assessed income at Rs.31,71,590/-. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal exparte to the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Page 4 of 5 7. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate facts of the case in right perspective. Further, he contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without going into the merits of the case. He further contended that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing thus the assessee was deprived of valuable legal right for effectively representing his case.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submission and supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has taken multiple grounds before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging ex-parte order and impugned additions. During the course of hearing, it was submitted that the assessee did not receive any communication from the First Appellate Authority. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adverted to the grounds taken by the assessee and dismissed the appeal by observing as under: -
“5.1 Now before me in the appellate proceedings, no submission has been filed despite various opportunities. I have gone through the statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant has stated that the money was deposited during demonetization period. Hence, it is a clear case of Operation Clean Money. Since no evidences have been filed before me to explain the source of the cash. Hence, the addition of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.”
10. The above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) demonstrate that the submissions of the assessee which he has raised through grounds of appeal were not adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). We, Page 5 of 5 therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is hereby directed not to seek any adjournment without any medical exigency. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/06/2025.