MAHENDRA RAVINDRA SALUNKHE,PANVEL CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3204/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 January 2024AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTΑΝΤ ΜΕΜΒER, SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial 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 held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits but dismissed it for want of non-prosecution. Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires the CIT(A) to determine points in dispute and record reasons. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merit after affording another opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to the assessee's inability to attend hearings, first due to the Covid-19 pandemic and later due to a medical illness. The assessee claims the notices from CIT(A) lacked specific information. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case for AY 2011-12, treated a portion of turnover from commodity exchange as income, and estimated commission/brokerage income, adding it to the total income.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, despite the assessee providing reasons for non-compliance due to medical illness and pandemic?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 148,Section 194H,Section 43(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 27.12.2023Pronounced: 01.01.2024

O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 11.07.2023 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us:

1.

1. In the appeal the assessee had stated that he had the total income of Rs.2,26,652. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had given the assessee an opportunity to hear, firstly in the year of 2021 however due to second wave of Covid 19 he was not able to attend the same as during the concerned period survival was the only challenge. Later, the concerned assessee in the year 2023 was diagnosed with medical illness which impaired his physical inability and mental stability to attend the hearings. The order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals by passing an order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11/07/2023. The notices received from the CIT Appeals did not contain any specific information to be submitted due to which the assessee was under the presumption that they will ask additional questions in the next notice. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.”

P a g e | 2 Sangeeta Pratap Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4) 2. Fact in brief is that the assessee has not filed return of income therefore the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of CIB/26AS information that the assessee has made trading in National/Multi Commodity exchange contract of Rs.32,21,18,660/- for sale and purchase in the exchange and the assessee has also earned commission or Brokerage on which TDS has been made (Section 194H) during the F.Y. 2011-12. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has not made any compliance, therefore, the assessing officer has treated 1% of F & O activity carried out by the assessee during the year to the amount of Rs.32,21,187/- i.e 1% of total turnover Rs.32,21,18,660/- as income of the assesse and added to the total income under the head speculation business u/s 43(5) of the Act. Further the assessing officer has also estimated commission and brokerage earned by the assesse to the amount of Rs.78,846/- and added to the total income of the assessee.

3.

The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not made any compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings.

4.

Heard the ld. D.R and perused the material on record. In the year 2021 because of covid period the assessee could not made any compliance. However, during the March 2023 to June 2023 the ld. CIT(A) has issued notices which assesse could not made compliance because of medical illness which impaired his physical inability and mental stability. The ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities.

5.

The ld. CIT(A) has mentioned at para 8 of the appeal order that in case the assessee fail to make compliance then the ld. CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →