ANAGONADANAHALLI RENUKAIAH ARUNKUMAR,TIPTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TIPTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1232/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 September 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had cryptically considered the issue without adjudicating independent grounds and it was unclear if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass a detailed order.

What were the facts?

The appeal arises from an order dated 16/05/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. The assessee is contesting the addition of Rs. 1,75,96,860/- to their total income, which was determined by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal highlight issues with the CIT(A)'s order being cryptic and lacking application of mind.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order was passed without proper application of mind and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,71,03,700/- as unexplained cash credit is sustainable in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi .S, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the order dated 16/05/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, on following grounds of appeal:

1. The Order of the learned Commissioner passed under section 250 of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.

2. The Appellant denies to be assessed to tax on total income as determined by the learned AO of Rs. 1,75,96,860/- as against the total income reported by the Appellant of Rs. 4,93,160/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) is not justified in passing a cryptic order, without application of mind and a nonspeaking order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in passing the order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard thus violating the principles of natural justice rendering the order liable to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis that the Appellant has denied to have received from Shri Anil Kumar Jain which is not acceptable as per information received from ADIT(Inv.) Gwalior (MP) in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the issue that the learned AO concluded the assessment without disposing the objections of the Appellant which is a clear violation of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s GKN Driveshafts, reported in 259 ITR 19.

7.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing the learned AO to provide the complete details of investigation report which was used against the Appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law that when the entire amount of Rs. 1,71,03,700 was included in the turnover and appropriate taxes were discharged, the same cannot be once again treated as unexplained cash credit which is unsustainable in law.

9.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,71,06,700/- as unexplained cash credit when section 68 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.

11.

In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

At the outset, on perusal of the impugned order, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) cryptically considered the issue without adjudicating the independent grounds raised by the assessee. It is also not known from the impugned order whether assessee was provided with opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.

3. In the interest of justice, we remit this appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with the direction to pass a detailed order on merits in respect of each grounds raised

by the assessee in form

35. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard msut be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal on ground no. 3 raised by the assessee before this Tribunal. All other grounds on merits are kept open. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →