SHIVANAND NINGAPPA KOTAGUNASI,KALAGATAGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, GULBARGA
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which affirmed an addition of Rs. 76,40,800/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The NFAC had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance, despite opportunities provided.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and lacked relevant submissions. The issue of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act needed proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal inclined to remand the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order and whether the issue of unexplained cash deposits was properly adjudicated.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, BENGALURU BENCH
Before: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM
Per N. K. Choudhry, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.11.2023, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2015-16.
2 ITA No.162/Bang/2024 Shri Shivanand Ningappa Kotagunasi 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) vide the assessment order dated 21.3.2023 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act made the addition of Rs.76,40,800/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of un- explained cash deposits.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the ld. Commissioner, who though afforded various opportunities to the Assessee, however, the Assessee made no compliance and therefore finding no option, the ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and in consequence by dismissing the same affirmed the assessment order and the aforesaid addition.
The Assessee before us at the outset raised the issue that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO,) had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order under consideration. We observe, as the impugned order itself is an ex-parte and in the absence of relevant submissions/documents, the issue qua un-explained cash deposit u/s.69A of the Act as involved in the instant appeal remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and true spirit. Therefore for just decision of the case and substantiate justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim and also the liberty to raise the legal ground, whatsoever the Assessee intends to raise.
We are also inclined to direct the Assessee to file the relevant documents/submissions in support of its claim before the ld. Commissioner and also to co-operate with the appellate proceedings and in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
3 ITA No.162/Bang/2024 Shri Shivanand Ningappa Kotagunasi Thus the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner in the aforesaid terms.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2024 during virtual hearing.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (N. K. Choudhry) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Mini, Sr.PS.
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT
BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Bengaluru
