RAM PATEL,SANAWAD vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 355/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and for the grounds raised to be decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on an ex-parte basis due to non-participation in proceedings. The assessee claimed that notices were not received due to an incorrect email ID, which has now been updated.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the grounds raised by the assessee were decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Venus Rawka AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.02.2024Pronounced: 29.02.2024

“1 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and passed an order on ex parte basis without giving the assessee the opportunity of being heard. 2.The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,89,90,123/- as against the returned income of 55,87,240/-. 3 The learned CIT(A) erred in law in assessing a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. The addition made is totally wrong and illegal on the facts of the case. 4.The learned CIT(A) erred in assessing the above income without appreciating that there was no discrepancy in Books of Accounts AND without pointing out the above aspect of incompleteness or incorrectness in Books of Accounts of Assessee. 5.The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the outcome of survey u/s 133A without appreciating that there is no provision of offering additional income during course of survey u/s 133A. 6.The learned CIT(A) erred in invoking section 115BBE without appreciating that the documents relied upon contained name and amounts very clearly. Thus provision of section 115BBE does not apply. 7 The learned CIT(A) erred in assessing a sum of Rs. 1,14,90,123/- on account of excess stock found during the course of survey without appreciating that there was no discrepancy in the stock which is apparent from the fact that copy of inventory drawn at the time of survey was never provided to the assesse.”

ITANo.354 & 355/Ind/2023 Ram Patel For A.Y.2017-18

“1 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and passed an order on ex parte basis without giving the assessee the opportunity of being heard 2.The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case and assessed the total income at Rs. 19,15,280/- as against the returned income of 11,26,380/-. 3.The learned CIT(A)erred in law and facts of the case and made an addition of Sundry Creditors amounting to Rs. 7,88,900/- by treating it as unexplained money u/s 68 of Income Tax Act 1961. The addition made is totally wrong and illegal on the facts of the case. 4.That the learned CIT(A)treated addition made under section 68 as unexplained despite of the fact that the said amount was receipt of sale of pesticides and fertilizers and the same was a business receipt. Therefore action taken by Assessing Officer for taxing it under section 68 and levied the tax under section 115BBE which is totally wrong.”

2.

At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order for both the assessment years due to non-participation of the assessee in the proceedings. He has pointed out that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not received by the assesse due to the reason that the same were sent to the E-mail ID not used by the assessee. He has thus submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A). Ld. AR has pointed out that now the assessee has updated its E-mail ID in the system of the department. Accordingly Ld. AR has pleaded that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

ITANo.354 & 355/Ind/2023 Ram Patel 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

4.

We have considered rival submission as well as relevant material on record. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for A.Ys.2016-17 & 2017-18 by passing an identical orders. The relevant part of the CIT(A) in para 5 is as under:

“DECISION 5.0. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated at table at serial No.

4. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. It can be safely presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.”

5.

Thus, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed for non- prosecution as no reply was submitted by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A). It is manifest from the impugned order that the CIT(A) has not decided the grounds raised by the assessee on merits but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non- representation and non-prosecution. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has now updated its E-mail ID with the department and therefore, the assesse will now participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). Accordingly in the facts and ITANo.354 & 355/Ind/2023 Ram Patel circumstances of the case when the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing the impugned ex-parte order and the grounds raised by the assessee have not been adjudicated on merits then in the interest of justice the impugned orders of the CIT(A) are set aside and matters are remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assesse.

6.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on conclusion of hearing on 29.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →