Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income, but information from REIC suggested they sold gems and jewellery for Rs. 12,06,189/-. An enquiry by the State Commercial Department indicated the assessee's firm did not conduct this business. A notice under section 148 was issued, but the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment.
Held
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the AO or the CIT(A) for hearings. Considering this, the tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, but directed them not to seek adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of the case was justified without proving service of notice under section 148, and whether the dismissal of the appeal and addition for sales made out of genuine purchases were justified.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 144, 143(3), 147, 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhidated 20.05.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in justifying the reopening the case on borrowed satisfaction without proving service of notice under section 148 of IT Act on the assessee.
2. Without prejudice to ground no. (1) ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming addition of Rs. 12,06,189/- for the sales made out of genuine purchases, by submitting Income tax Return under deeming provisions of section 44AD of Income Tax Act on total sales achieved.
3 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 1, 61,190/- for the year under consideration. Thereafter, the revenue was in possession of an information received from the office of REICthat the assessee had sold gems and Jewellery for Rs. 12, 06,189/- vide bill no. 252, dated: 02.04.2010. It is also confirmed in the enquiry of the State Commercial Department that no gems and Jewellery business had been done by the assessee’s firm, i.e. M/s. Konark Impex in its business premises.
4 Based on above information, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee vide dated: 16.04.2015. In response to this neither return of income nor was any other reply ever filed by the assessee. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed Ex-Parte u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) & 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 12, 06,189/- as undisclosed income. The assessee being aggrieved with this order preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee, as the assessee never came forward to attend the hearings before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee being further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) preferred the present appeal before us.
We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee along with original ground of appeal and additional ground of appeal raised before us vide application filed on 19.11.2024. As observed (supra), the assessee never attended the hearings before the AO and thereafter before the Ld. CIT (A) also. Facts of the matter and law involved never discussed before the authorities below, in such a situation, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh hearing after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard and the assessee is directed to participate in the proceedings without seeking any adjournment. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.