Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
सुिव्ईसम्पहोिेकीनतनि/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065191569(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- & 302/VIZ/2024 DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD 25/1065191412(1) dated 28.05.2024 arising out of orders passed Under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.09.2021 and 25.09.2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively.
Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 301/VIZ/2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16 as a lead appeal.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is a home maker and a partner in the partnership firm entitled M/s. Subham Developers. Assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y.2015-16. Assessing Officer received information from the ADIT(Inv), Unit-IIII(4), Rajamahedravaram, that the assessee had made investments in a firm M/s. Subham Developers and she had also received income from the firm in the F.Y. 2014-15, however the assessee has not filed the Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16. Consequently, Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after recording reasons for reopening. Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2020 was issued and duly served on the assessee and asked to file the return of income for the A.Y.2015-16. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee from time to time seeking relevant information/documents. However, assessee could not file any reply for the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 147 r.w.s.
Page No. 2 & 302/VIZ/2024 DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD 144 of the Act by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,31,48,343/- considering the total share (10.90%) investments of Rs.2,07,100/- in M/s.Subham Developers for purchase of lands as income of the assessee being unexplained investment under the head income from other sources and Rs.1,29,41,243/- being unexplained receipts under the head income from other sources.
On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on her contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by her. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed off this appeal based on the merits available on record.
On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us and raised following grounds of appeal: -
1. In the facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the facts of the case and the Grounds of Appeal taken in the Appeal Memorandum, before dismissal of the appeal ex parte.
2. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the appellant's primary objection to the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned AO as the transactions on which the Notices were issued and she was queried, never belonged to her; the assessment was made on the appellant by reckoning the oncome at the proportionate gross sale consideration of the sale of stock (property sold by a developer-firm) by a partnership firm, which was bad in law.
3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any Ground of Appeal”
6. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order
Page No. 3 & 302/VIZ/2024 DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order and she pleaded to confirm the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the assessment order and Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering submissions of the Ld.AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and the assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and in turn Ld. CIT(A) call for remand report, if necessary, and dispose off the case on Page No. 4 & 302/VIZ/2024 DURGA KUMARI MOHAMMAD merits. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Coming to the appeal relating to A.Y. 2016-17, since facts in this case are mutatis mutandis, therefore the decision taken in for the A.Y.2015-16 is applicable to this assessment year also. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
To sum-up, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th September, 2024.