MD. SULEMAN,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),SILIGURI, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1079/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case and supporting documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18 and did not comply with notices. The Assessing Officer treated cash deposits and credit entries of Rs. 1,20,43,867/- as unexplained money under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, given the ex-parte assessment order due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 271AAC,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI RAJESH KUMAR & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

order

: November 12th, 2024 ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 28.07.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 20.12.2019.

I.T.A. No.: 1079/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Md. Suleman. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee being an individual has not filed return of income for the AY 2017-18. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act has been issued. However, the assessee did not file its return of income in response to the said notice. Hence, proceedings u/s 144 of the Act has been initiated, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued but the assessee did not comply. Accordingly, as per the material available with the Department, it appears that assessee has made huge amount of bank transactions in the FY 2016-17. Hence, entire cash deposit and credit entries at Rs. 1,20,43,867/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act has also been initiated. The assessee placed the said order before ld. CIT(A) wherein also his appeal has been dismissed on account of non-compliance on behalf of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee instead of challenging the impugned order on the merit, has submitted that order has been passed behind the back of the assessee. So, he should be given an opportunity to place his case before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') as the assessee has sufficient documentary evidences in support of his case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the interest of justice, assessee has been given an opportunity to place his case. 1.2. On the contrary, ld. D/R supports the impugned order.

2.

On perusal of the order of the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) it appears to us that due to non-compliance, the order was passed. Considering the facts and for the interest of justice, we are in this opinion that assessee has to be given an opportunity to place his case before the ld. AO. Accordingly, the case is restored to the file of ld. AO, orders of ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back before the ld. AO. Assessee is directed to place his material and documents before the ld. AO in support of the case without taking any adjournment. The ld. AO is also directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →