P.SRINIVASAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), HOSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 870/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication on merits. It was unclear if notices were served on the assessee, and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC was dismissed ex-parte without adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed grounds related to the legality of assessment under section 144 without notice under section 143(2) and a general ground. The CIT(A)-NFAC also noted the assessee's failure to pursue the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)-NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal on merits, especially concerning the legality of assessment and service of notices. The issue also involves the addition of unexplained cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 24.06.2024

O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060347000 (1) dated 30.01.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hosur for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 29.12.2019.

2.

At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and there is no adjudication by CIT(A)-NFAC on merits of the case. It was stated by ld.AR that even on jurisdictional ground on new issue of 143(2) of the Act, the CIT(A)-NFAC has not properly adjudicated the issue. On merits, the issue is addition made by the AO of unexplained cash deposit added u/s.69A of the Act and taxed u/s.115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs.31,13,500/- and assessing ‘income from other sources’ at Rs.22,97,140/-. The ld.AR stated that the CIT(A)-NFAC has given his adjudication as under:- 6. Ground no. 6: This ground pertains to legality of assessment u/s 144 without issuance of notice u/s 143(2).

6.1 In para 8 of the assessment order, the assessing officer has concluded that the return of income filed on 17/12/19 is invalid and non-est. Once the return is treated as invalid and non-est, requirement of issuance of notice u/s 1432) does not arise. This ground is dismissed.

7.

Ground no.7: This ground is general in nature, therefore, doesn't require separate adjudication. Hence dismissed.

8.

Further, it has been observed that the appellant has been provided reasonable number of opportunities but appellant has chosen not to avail any of these. It appears that the appellant is not keen to pursue the appeal as no material/argument has been brought on record by the appellant against the order of the AO and in support of the grounds taken in appeal.

9.

Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of persuasion of appeal has stated that- "Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it.” 10. In view of these facts. I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO's order and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed.

3. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he could not controvert the above facts. We have gone through the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and also noticed that the CIT(A)-NFAC has allowed three opportunities fixing the case on 29.01.2024 after having issued two notices throughout the appellate proceedings. It seems that there is no finding that the notices were served on the assessee or not, although the notices were sent through ITBA whether these were served on assessee or not, it is not clear. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits.

4.

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

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →