WAHEEDUDDIN KHAJA MOINUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 458/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technical ground without deciding on merits. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file his return of income for AY 2017-18 and did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The AO made a best judgment assessment under Section 69A, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellate authorities should decide an appeal on merits even if dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Hearing: 09/07/2024

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member and Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं / (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Shri Waheeduddin Khaja Vs. ITO (International Moinuddin Taxation) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:DGOPM7707P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Smt.Sheetal Sarin, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.02.2024 of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2017-18.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. On the basis of statement of financial transaction filed by the Banks in the wake of demonetization, there was information available with the Department that the assessee has ITA 458 of 2024 Waheeduddin Khaja Moinuddin made huge cash deposits during demonetization period. Hence, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 8.3.2018. However, the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 in response to the said notice. Since the assessee failed to comply with the terms of a notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under “best judgment assessment” and assessed the total income of the u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.10,80,000/-and made a demand of Rs.13,34,880/- u/s 156 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3.

Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the learned CIT (A) and submit any substantive evidences, regarding cash deposits during demonetization period and interest credited into the bank accounts.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the statutory notices issued by the Department were not received by the assessee, hence, there was no representation before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that given an opportunity, the ITA 458 of 2024 Waheeduddin Khaja Moinuddin assessee would be able to substantiate its claim by producing all the necessary evidences before the Assessing Officer.

6.

The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that despite issuing several statutory notices by the Assessing Officer and the notices issued by the learned CIT (A), the assessee neither appeared before the lower authorities nor complied with the notices issued by the authorities below. Therefore, she submitted that the orders of the authorities below should be upheld and the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed.

7. We heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A). We find the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal file by the assessee ex- parte for non-prosecution, however, not discussed the issue on merits. It is a well settled position of law by the decision of various Courts that even in the case of ex-parte proceedings for non- prosecution of the appellant, the appellate authorities should decide the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record. Since the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on technical ground for non-prosecution, in our considered view, the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing to explain its case. Therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer because even before the Assessing Officer, the assessee does not appear and filed any details. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer

ITA 458 of 2024 Waheeduddin Khaja Moinuddin with a direction to re-consider the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →