LUV JIT JALAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 30 lakhs as unexplained money and challenged the invoking of Section 115BBE and non-granting of deductions under Section 80C. The NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to file written submissions despite receiving notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative attitude but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide another opportunity. The issue was remitted to the NFAC for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs as unexplained money is justified, and whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal without affording proper opportunity for hearing.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 80C, 234A, 234B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
ITA No.103/Bang/2024 Luv Jit Jalan, Bangalore
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.103/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Luv Jit Jalan No.28 & 29, Ground Floor Arihant Plaza, Kamaraj Road ITO Vs. Bangalore 560 042 Ward-1(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore PAN NO.AILPJ5661P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Prashanth G.S., A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue.
Date of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 23.11.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
The orders of the authorities below in so far as these are against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.38,43,243/- as against the returned income of Rs.4,17,350/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. a) The action of the learned CIT(A) in summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is against the principles of natural justice under the facts & circumstances of the case.
ITA No.103/Bang/2024 Luv Jit Jalan, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 b) The action of the learned CIT(A) in not adjudicating the matter on merits of the case is bad in law and thus the order needs to be set aside under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The order of the learned CIT(A) suffers from want of application of principles of natural justice in so far as the learned CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity of being heard under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Addition of cash deposits into bank as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act: a) The learned assessing officer erred in bringing to tax a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- being cash deposited into bank as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.
b) The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits into the bank account is the funds received from appellant's father and thus the addition made needs to be deleted under the facts & circumstances of the case. c) The action of the learned assessing officer in holding that the appellant's father did not have any sources of income is bad in law and consequently the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- needs to be deleted under the facts & circumstances of the case. d) Without prejudice, the assessing officer ought to have worked out the peak credit before quantifying the addition under the facts and circumstances of the case. e) Without further prejudice, the rate of tax levied under section 115BBE for the assessment year 2017-18 ought to have been 30% and not 60% under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned assessing officer erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 1,25,889/-being deductions claimed under section 80C of the Act under the facts & circumstances of the case. a) The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under sections 234A & 234B of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) Without prejudice, the interest under sections 234A & 234B is not leviable and ought to have been waived on the facts of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.
ITA No.103/Bang/2024 Luv Jit Jalan, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 2. The assessee is in appeal before us with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.30 lakhs being deposit into bank account as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act and also assessee challenging the invoking of section 115BBE of the Act and non-granting deduction u/s 80C of the Act.
The main plea of the assessee is that in these cases, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the present case, the NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte on the reason that assessee has not filed any written submission before it.
3.1 It is noted that the grievance of assessee in this appeal is with regard to passing ex-parte order confirming the addition made by ld. AO of Rs.30 lakhs being deposit into bank account as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act and also assessee challenging the invoking of section 115BBE of the Act and non-granting deduction u/s 80C of the Act. The NFAC has dismissed the appeal ex-parte on the reason that assessee has not responded to the various notices issued to the assessee and could not file written submission before NFAC. We strongly deprecate non-cooperation attitude of assessee in non-filing the written submission before NFAC. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to present its case and accordingly, issue in dispute is remitted to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration and to decide the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
ITA No.103/Bang/2024 Luv Jit Jalan, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th Feb, 2024
Sd/- Sd/- (George George K.) (Chandra Poojari) Vice President Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated Feb, 2024. VG/SPS
Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file
By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
