Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian, filed her ROI for AY 2017-18. Later, cash deposits of Rs. 31 lakhs were found in her account. The AO, after transferring the case to the International Taxation wing, issued notices and framed the assessment within 15 days, which the assessee claims was hasty.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to submit explanations and documents regarding the nature and source of the deposits before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the AO for de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether proper opportunity was granted to the assessee for submission of evidence during assessment proceedings, and whether the assessment was framed hastily.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai, dated 14.12.2022 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2017-18.
The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.31,00,000/-.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a Non- Resident Indian residing outside India and had filed her return of income (RoI) for AY 2017-18 on 03.01.2018 to the tune of Rs.2,61,000/-. Even though the AO, issued notice u/s.143(2) on 22.09.2018 finding that the assessee was not residing in India, transferred the case to the office of the DCIT (International Taxation) on 18.09.2019 and the AO issued notices to the assessee regarding cash deposits of Rs.31 lakhs on 25.11.2019 by issuing notice u/s.142(1); and even though, assessee submitted reply with details of the nature and source of the deposits made by her father in her account, the AO asked for certain documents which assessee was unable to produce before the assessment was framed on 11.12.2019 and instead was able to produce the same after 11.12.2019. According to the Ld.AR, it can be seen that the jurisdictional AO [the DCIT (International Taxation)] had issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on 25.11.2019 and framed the assessment on 11.12.2019 i.e.
within a span of 15 days which was hastily done without giving adequate time to the assessee for producing the relevant evidences before the AO.
Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), he prayed that assessee may be granted one more opportunity before the AO.
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is an NRI and had filed her RoI for AY 2017-18 on 03.01.2018 returning an income of Rs.2,61,000/-. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO noted that there was a deposit of Rs.31 lakhs during demonetization period in assessee’s bank account, hence he issued notice to the assessee on 22.09.2018, meanwhile, the AO found out that the assessee was not residing in India and an NRI, hence, he transferred the case to the DCIT (International Taxation) on 18.09.2019. Then the AO [the DCIT (International Taxation)] issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on 25.11.2019 and thereafter, framed the assessment order on 11.12.2019 making an addition of Rs.31 lakhs (i.e. within a span of 15 days). The main grievance of the assessee is that no proper opportunity was given to the assessee to submit its explanation/documents regarding the nature and source of the deposits made by her father in her account. Since, the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co., (supra), we set aside the impugned (AY 2017-18) Smt. Subairaparvin Seeni Ibrahim order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The Ld.AR undertakes to file written submissions/relevant documents before the AO on the issue of deposit of Rs.31 lakhs during demonetization. The AO to frame assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.