Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue preferred an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who sustained additions on account of cash deposits as part of the assessee's business turnover. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to give the Revenue an opportunity to rebut additional evidences furnished by the assessee, and a remand report was not called for. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not providing the Revenue an opportunity to rebut additional evidence and failing to call for a remand report.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 22.07.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-20/10882/2019-20, filed before him against the order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 63(5), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short).
On calling the case for hearing, none appeared for the assessee and the record shows that the notices have been issued repeatedly. No further opportunity is justified.
On hearing the ld. DR, we find that by way of revised grounds, ground No.3 has been raised by the Revenue on the basis that the ld.CIT(A) failed to give the Revenue opportunity to rebut the additional evidences furnished by the assessee by calling for remand report. On going through the impugned order of NFAC, we find that as with regard to the issue of additions made to the income of the assessee on the basis of deposit/credit in the bank account, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act and in paras 7.3 and 7.4, NFAC observes about the evidences which were filed at appellate state and considering those evidences, the impugned order has been passed whereby cash deposits have been accepted to be part of the business of the assessee and addition on account of profit @ 8% of business turnover has been sustained.
We find substance in the ground that where the assessee had preferred not to make any factual representations in the assessment proceedings, then, the additional evidences should have been admitted in accordance with the law and particularly calling for remand report from the AO which is not reflected from the impugned order. 2
Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. The issue on merits is restored to the files of AO to give a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, thereafter, pass an order afresh.