HARNAM SINGH GURJAR,DATIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 292/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the lower authorities passed orders ex parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard or for their documents to be considered.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, deposited a significant amount during demonetization but failed to file an ITR or reply to a notice under Section 142. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.19,31,750 under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 142,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH: AGRA

Before: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR & AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma & Manuj
For Respondent: Shri Shildndra Shrivastava , Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.01.2025Pronounced: 07.02.2025

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A) for short”)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 and arises out of the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”).

2.

The assessee is filed with the delay of five days and an application was filed to condone the delay on the ground of sickness/sufferings of his advocate, the appeal could not be filed within time.

3.

Heard. The reason is sufficient, therefore, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and enjoying the income from the agriculture because the same is an exempt income. The assessee has deposited Rs.13,01,000 in his bank account during the period of demonetization from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The assessee has not filed his ITR for the assessment year 2007-08. A notice under Section 142 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee but the assessee has neither fileD the return of income nor filed any reply in compliance of the notice. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and made the addition of Rs.19,31,750 under Section 69A of the Act.

5.

Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) who vide his order dated 18.10.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee against which the assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

We have heard rival submissions of both the parties and examined the relevant material available on record.

7.

After careful perusal of the case material available on record, we find that both the authorities below have passed the orders ex parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and considering the documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, we deem it fit to send the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the assessment proceeding. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of accordingly

11.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 7/02/2025.

More judgments on Section 142

All 279 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →