Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Indore [“CIT(A)” in short] for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The Grounds of appeal are as under :-
“1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
2. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits of the case.
3. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in determining the total income of the appellant u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.1,29,92,920/-, as against the Returned Income of Rs.37,31,920/- thereby
ITA 191/Ind/2022 Smt. Bharti Navlani Vs. ACIT AY : 2015-16 [2] making additions of Rs.92,61,000/- which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in-law.
4. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in framing the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, arbitrary, bad-in-law and against the principles of natural law and justice.
5. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.92,61,000/- made by the AO in the appellant's income by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act in respect of certain unsecured loans genuinely taken by the appellant during the relevant previous year without considering and appreciating the material fact that the appellant had genuinely taken such loans through banking channels from the persons whose identity and creditworthiness were beyond all doubts.”
The assessee is a salaried individual and also earned income from consultancy services. The return of income was filed online belatedly on 31.03.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16 with total returned income of Rs.37,31,920/-. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny for the reason that large cash deposits in savings bank accounts was there and there was mismatch in sale consideration of property. After taking cognizance of the reply filed by the assessee and the details, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.92,61,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short).
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The learned AR submitted that since the notice was not received by the assessee related to hearing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee could
ITA 191/Ind/2022 Smt. Bharti Navlani Vs. ACIT AY : 2015-16 [3] not attend the hearing before the CIT(A) and ex-parte order was passed without giving any finding on merit. The learned AR prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of issues contested therein on merit and opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee.
The learned DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it appears that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non- appearance on the part of the assessee, without giving any finding on merit. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter/issues to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested therein after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.