Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,35,40,000/- to the assessee's total income under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. This addition was based on cash withdrawals from the assessee's bank account. The assessee failed to provide explanations for the source of these funds despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex-parte assessment order.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appellant-assessee's AR admitted to inadvertent mistakes leading to non-participation in the proceedings before the Learned CIT(A). Despite multiple notices, the assessee could not comply due to the AR's oversight. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee should not suffer due to the AR's mistake and that a reasonable opportunity for a hearing is a matter of justice.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the Learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision given the appellant's inadvertent non-participation in the original proceedings due to the AR's mistake.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 115BBE, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “ B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Brij Nandan Beniwal cuke The ITO, S/o Tej Singh Beniwal, Bayana Road, Vs. Ward, Karauli. Sadhana Colony, Hindaun City. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUDPB9613R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/09/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, J.M.
Appellant-assessee has challenged order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The matter relates to assessment year 2018-19. Assessee was before Learned CIT(A), feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
Sh. Brij Nanadan Beniwal vs. ITO A case of addition- Failure to explain source of cash credit 2. Vide abovesaid order dated 20.03.2023, the Assessing Officer framed assessment while calculating total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,35,40,000/- by making addition of the said amount u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Said addition was made on the basis of information that the assessee had made cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs. 1,35,40,000/- from his account with Corporation Bank, Hindaun Branch, Rajasthan , and when the assessee was called upon to explain the source of cash credit, despite multiple opportunities, he did not respond. It led to completion of the assessment proceedings and framing of assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. Challenge made to the assessment order by the assessee before Learned CIT(A) did not give any respite to the asssessee. Hence, this appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Learned AR for the appellant has submitted that Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee while observing that despite issuance of notice, the assessee did not participate in the appeal- proceedings, but he admits that non participation in the proceedings Sh. Brij Nanadan Beniwal vs. ITO before Learned CIT(A) was due to his own inadvertant mistake (of learned AR for the appellant). Ld. AR has submitted that first notice issued u/s 250 of the Act was issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) for compliance by 08.04.2024 but, as per instructions, adjournment was sought on behalf of the assessee; that thereafter 3 more notices dated 27.05.2024, 04.06.2024 and 14.06.2024 were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) for compliance by 03.06.2024, 10.06.2024 and 21.06.2024, respectively, but, said notices also could not be complied with for the aforesaid reason. Ld. AR for the appellant-assessee explains that he was informed by the previous counsel about the notices, but, inadvertently he could not participate in the proceedings. Accordingly, ld. AR for the appellant-assessee has urged that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the files of Learned CIT(A) so as to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee-appellant to put forth his case in his appeal.
As is available from para 4.1 of the impugned order, after first adjournment sought on behalf of the assessee-appellant, before Learned CIT(A), three notices were issued by the said office to the assessee.
Sh. Brij Nanadan Beniwal vs. ITO In Form No. 35, e-mail address has been mentioned as advocate.atul1996@gmail.com and in column No. 17 address of the appellant for communication of notices finds mentioned as “S/o Tej Singh Beniwal, Sadhana Colony, Hindaun, Hindaun H.O. Karauli, Rajasthan, India-322230” . This goes to show that address of Learned AR representing the assessee in this appeal does not find mention in Form No. 35.
When Ld. AR for the appellant has candidly put forth inadvertence in non participation in the proceedings before Learned CIT(A), assessee- appellant cannot be made to suffer because of said advertent mistake on the part of Ld. AR.
In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh. Result 7. As a result of the above discussion, this appeal is hereby disposed off for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the assessee before Learned CIT(A) is restored to its original number, for its decision afresh, of course, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee-appellant of being heard.