MOHAMMED HANEEF ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 48/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not decide the issues on merits due to the assessee's lack of response. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income due to substantial cash deposits during demonetization and the assessee's failure to file a return of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO were justified, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case before the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, Ld. CA
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale
Hearing: 07.02.2024Pronounced: 21.02.2024

O R D E R Per N.K. Choudhry (JM):

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 10.04.2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “the Commissioner”) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2017-18.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) as per information available with the Department, found that there have been substantial cash deposits during demonetization period in the Assessee’s bank accounts, whereas the Assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration u/s.139(1) of the Act, and therefore, the AO by issuing show cause notice dated 12.03.2018 u/s.142(1) of the Act, called for the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. However, there was no response from the Assessee. In the absence of any reply/document by the Assessee, the AO ultimately made the following additions:

i) the amount of Rs.29,68,000/- u/s.69A of the Act. ii) the amount of Rs.11,82,183/- on account of ‘Profit & Gains of Business or Profession’. iii) the amount of Rs.54,234/- being 10% of Rs.5,42,336/- under the head ‘Profit & Gains of Business or Profession’.

3.

The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the aforesaid additions before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the aforesaid additions, against which the Assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that in spite of sending various notices to the Assessee by the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee neither made any submission nor filed any document and therefore, the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee. The Assessee though claimed that it has not received the notices as alleged in the impugned order, however without substantive material, the said claim raised by the Assessee is untenable and therefore the Assessee do not observe any leniency, however considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of relevant reply/documents of the Assessee, was unable the decide the issues involved before him in its right perspective and on merits as well, and therefore, we for the just decision of the case and for want of substantial justice are inclined to give one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its case before the Ld. Commissioner. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its case.

The Assessee is also directed to file relevant reply/documents which would be essential for appropriate adjudication of the issues involved and in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →