THYAGARAJU VISWANATH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1149/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the violation of natural justice and the potential non-adherence to CBDT circulars, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 43 days, claiming they were unaware of the lower authorities' orders. The assessee also argued that the assessment order was passed without sufficient opportunity of being heard and without following CBDT circulars on demonetization.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without following mandatory CBDT circulars, warranting a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE “A” BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Hearing: 11.07.2024

O R D E R

Per Keshav Dubey, JM :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /CIT(A) dated 29.02.2024 vide DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2003-24/1061767308(1) passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

“The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, settled positions in law, and the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the assessing officer insofar as the jurisdiction has not been assumed in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(AY 2017-18) Sri.Thyagaraju Viswanath.

3. 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.

4.

The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 16,30,990/- as against the declared total income of Rs. 3,86,250/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of Rs. 12,44,740/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The order of assessment is bad in law for want of requisite jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding of the invocation of the rigorous provisions of section 69A of the act made by the AO on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the fact that the AO has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A are inapplicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the fact that the AO has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 115BBE are inapplicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding and confirming the initiation of the penalty proceedings under section 271AAC by the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case.

11.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the computation sheet which is incorrect and riddled with mistakes and reflects manifest non-application of mind, and consequently the notice of demand is unsustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

12.

The Appellant craves leave of this authority to add, alter, delete or substitute any or all of the above grounds as may be necessary at the time of hearing.

(AY 2017-18) Sri.Thyagaraju Viswanath. 13. Wherefore, the Appellant prays before this authority that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity.”

3. There was a delay of 43 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition stating that the appellant had not been served with the notices either physically or by email and was completely unaware of the order passed. Further the assessee was also not watching the Income-tax portal regularly & for this reason the assessment order as well as the order of the NFAC were ex parte and accordingly prayed for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal by 43 days.

3.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There was a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. We find that there is good and sufficient reason for filing the appeal belatedly by 43 days and accordingly in the interest of justice the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the authorities below erred in passing the order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had not followed the mandatory CBDT Circular in respect of demonetization issues while passing the Assessment Order and requested to remand back the issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration. The AR of the assessee also given an assurance to appear before the AO and produce necessary documents / information in support of the claim of the assessee. 3

(AY 2017-18) Sri.Thyagaraju Viswanath.

5.

Considering the submissions of the learned AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we remit the issue to the files of the AO for fresh consideration and decide as per law. The assessee is directed to update his correct email id, mobile number and communication address in the Income-tax Portal and also intimate the same to the Revenue authorities. The assessee is directed to produce all the relevant documents / information in support of his claims and not to seek unnecessary adjournment of the case. We clarify that in case of any further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →