CHINTALA BHASKARA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 148/VIZ/2023Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 February 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed his return of income, but did not comply with notices from the Assessing Officer regarding cash deposits. The AO made an ex-parte assessment, treating the cash deposits as unexplained. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order and dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the revenue authorities were justified, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present his case with evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

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 Srirama Murthy, AR
Hearing: 07.02.2024Pronounced: 20.02.2024

अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Srirama Murthy, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 07.02.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024 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/250/2022-23/1050613269(1) dated 10.03.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 26.12.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

Chintala Bhaskara Rao, Visakhapatnam

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 22.11.2016, admitting a taxable income of Rs.10,23,650/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, calling for information in respect of the nature of business of the assessee, copies of bank accounts held, details of cash deposits made by the assessee along with sources for such deposits. As there was no compliance to the notices, the Assessing Officer(AO) completed the assessment on the information available on record. The AO observed that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.14,76,000/-. A letter dated 22.12.2018 was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the cash deposit of Rs.14,76,000/- should not be treated as unexplained, as sources for such cash deposits are not explained despite providing adequate opportunities to the assessee. Since, there was no response, the AO completed the assessment and passed an ex-parte order u/s 143(3) dated 26.12.2018, by treating the amount of Rs.14,76,000/- as unexplained cash deposit of the assessee and assessed the income at Rs.24,99,560/-.

Chintala Bhaskara Rao, Visakhapatnam

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

4.

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. The total receipts were offered and the net profit out of the total was offered as income. But the AO did not consider the request and added to income.

2. The assessee is did not followed the case and he never knew about the position of the case could not respond to the proceedings either on his own or by an authorized person, hence, the case was closed on merits and the AO has completed the assessment. 3. Even before Hon’ble CIT(Appeals), Visakhapatnam, the assessee appointed an authorised person but no information was supplied and the Authorised representative could not attend the case for hearings as the notices for hearing were not received by both the parties. 5. The only contention of the assessee is that neither the assessee nor his representative has received notices for hearing to prosecute his case either before the Ld.AO or the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that the total receipts were offered and the net profit out of the total was offered as income, but the AO did not consider the request and added to income. The assessee filed a paper book containing written submissions, cash flow statement and bank statement and submitted that the assessee has Chintala Bhaskara Rao, Visakhapatnam sufficient cash sources for cash deposits. Hence, the ex-parte orders passed by the revenue authorities are against law. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case with material evidences.

6. Per contra, the Ld.DR argued that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee did not avail the same. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

7. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte before the revenue authorities. The contention of the Ld.AR is that neither the assessee nor his representative has received any notices for hearing to prosecute assessee’s case with available material evidences. He, pleaded me to afford another opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his case with evidences. Keeping in view the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to adhere to the notices issued by the department and cooperate with the proceedings of the revenue

Chintala Bhaskara Rao, Visakhapatnam authorities. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th February, 2024.

Sd/- (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 20.02.2024 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Shri Chintala Bhaskara Rao, D.No.8-272-8/2, Vuda Colony, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue –The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →