VENKATESWARA RAO JAMMULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, GUNTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 60/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 March 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served with notices and therefore, an opportunity of being heard should be provided. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee made substantial cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 12,13,000. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained money under Section 69A as the assessee could not substantiate the source. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notices and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 271AAC,Section 282

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM ‘SMC’ BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR
Hearing: 25.03.2024Pronounced: 26.03.2024

अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059059772(1) dated 26.12.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 02.11.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO)

Venkateswara Rao Jammula, Guntur observed that the assessee had made substantial cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.12,13,000/. After issuing statutory notices u/s 142(1), as the assessee could not substantiate the cash deposits and establish source and nature of cash deposits for the A.Y.2017-18, the AO treated the amount of Rs.12,13,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC separately.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte, as the assessee neither responded to the notices nor sought any adjournment.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :

1. On the facts and circumstance of case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous and unsustainable in law apart from being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that none of the notices issued were served ont he appellant as required under section 282 of the Act r.w.Rule 127 of the Rules, and therefore, appellant could not put forth his case.

2. The Ld.CIT(A), as evidenced from the appellate order, called for copy of assessment order and then proceeds to dismiss the appeal on merits without probably having a copy of assessment order.

3. Without prejudice, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made byt eh AO of Rs.12,13,000 u/s 69A of the I.T.Act, 1961. Venkateswara Rao Jammula, Guntur

4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.

5. At the outset, the only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee could not put forth and substantiate his case since none of the notices were served on the assessee as required u/s 282 of the case and the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO without even having a copy of assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A), though called for the copy of assessment order during the appellate proceedings. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has source for cash deposits in his bank account. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded for affording an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.AO to substantiate assessee’s case with credible material evidences available in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given enough opportunities before the Ld.CIT(A), but the assessee neither appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) nor filed any submissions, information or documents in support of the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A). She, therefore, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

Venkateswara Rao Jammula, Guntur

7.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the AO made addition of Rs.12,13,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response from the assessee. The Ld.AR contended that none of the notices were served on the assessee to contest his case before the AO. Therefore, the Ld.AR has pleaded for affording an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.AO to substantiate assessee’s case with credible material evidences available. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.AO for giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings. Accordingly, the grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Venkateswara Rao Jammula, Guntur

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2024. (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 26 .03.2024 L.Rama, SPS

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →