Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 15.09.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2017-18. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal as under:
“1 Ld. AO was not justified in passing the ex-Parte order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
ITANo.540/Ind/2023 Gopal Parihar 2 The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 3 The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 82,07,500/- as Unexplained Money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE 4 The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.”
None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing despite the notice was issued to the assessee through RPAD as well as e-mail. Therefore, the bench proposes to hear and disposed of this appeal ex-parte.
We have heard Ld. DR and careful perused the impugned orders of the authorities below. The AO has passed the assessment order ex-parte u/s 144 when the assessee has not responded to the notice issued u/s 142(1). Even the assesse did not file any regular return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act the AO has made an addition of deposit of Rs.82,07,500/- in the bank account of the assessee by treated the same as unexplained money and taxed the said income as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) however, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed when there was no participation on behalf of the assessee in the proceedings before the CIT(A). We further note that the assessee filed the submission before the CIT(A) and claimed that the assessee is engaged in the business of retail trade of Patanjali products in the name and style of M/s Jay Gurudev Patanjali in village Jajamkhedi Manawar
ITANo.540/Ind/2023 Gopal Parihar District, Dhar M.P. The assessee also claimed that the turnover of the retail business for the year under consideration is Rs.88,14,635/- which is below the prescribed limit for getting accounts audited and after deducting expenses net profit from the business was claimed to Rs.2,40,735/- below the threshold limit of income chargeable to tax. The assesse also pleaded that as per the provisions of section 44AD the profit of the business of the assessee would be 8% of the turnover. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee while recording the fact that despite various opportunities provided to the assessee, the assessee did not reply or respond to any of the notices given by the AO and further the claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the assessee had not provided any evidence like purchase bill, salary register, rent agreement, electricity bill or other supporting evidence. Ld. DR has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A).
Since the assesse has claimed the source of deposit as turnover from the retail business of Patanjali products however, the orders passed by the AO as well as CIT(A) are ex-parte and without considering relevant record in support of the claim of the assessee. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we are of the considered opinion that the assessee be given one more opportunity to produce the relevant details and evidence in support of his claim regarding the business turnover as source of deposit in the bank account. Hence, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remanded to the record of the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after conducting proper Page 3 of 4
ITANo.540/Ind/2023 Gopal Parihar verification and examination of the necessary record to be filed by the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.04.2024.