MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1778/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not represent their case effectively before the AO and CIT(A) due to health issues. The CIT(A) also did not consider the evidence submitted. Therefore, to ensure justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2017-18 due to serious health issues and major brain surgery. The assessment was completed to the best of judgment, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, confirming the additions made by the AO. The assessee submitted various documents before the CIT(A) but they were not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present their case due to health reasons, and if the CIT(A) erred in not considering the evidence submitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Hearing: 20.11.2024Pronounced: 25.11.2024

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC order dated 18.7.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066812901(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised four grounds of appeal.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietary concern and for the AY 2017-18 under appeal he has not filed any return of income due to serious health issues and had undergone major brain surgery. Even the assessee could not respond to the various notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act due to the health issue of the previous surgery and was also affected by Covid. Thereafter, Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 the assessment in the case of assessee was concluded u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by assessing the total income of Rs.1,97,62,449/-to the best of judgment.

2.1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO dated 21.3.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished the written submissions along with the details of cash deposits, income computation, profit & loss account and balance sheet along with the audit report in respect of contract receipts, documentary evidence towards sales and purchase of property along with valuation report for cost of improvement as well as medical reports. But the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without accepting the evidences furnished before him which in his opinion is not backed by any proof, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and the additions made by the AO viz. considering cash deposit as a separate addition and treatment of same for taxation u/s 115BBE of the Act, estimation of income on gross receipts @ 12%, income from other sources and STCG on property transaction are confirmed and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee could neither represent his case before the AO nor could submit any details/explanations/documents/ Information. Further, we also take a note of the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the material/documents/records submitted before him and also was of the view that even purported evidence was not backed by any proof. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and fair play one Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case. Considering the facts of the case, we are remitting the entire issue in disputes back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues as per law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the revenue authorities and to file the relevant submissions/evidences/documents/records/ information which would be essential and required by the revenue authorities for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →