UMESH SHAMBHARKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR, BSNL RTTC BUILDING

PDF · subscribers
ITA 49/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessee argued that the reopening notice was invalid and that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering additional evidence or adhering to natural justice principles.

What were the issues?

The validity of the reopening notice and the propriety of the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 22/11/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. Whether the notice issued for reopening under Sec. 147 is valid in the eyes of law without proper sanction under Sec 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in the facts and law of the case. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in passing an order without accepting the additional evidences brought on record.

2 Umesh Shambharkar

4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in sustaining the addition and treating the cash deposit of Rs. 11,14,000/- as Unexplained Money under Sec. 69A, read with Sec. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5.

Whether the Ed. CIT(A) is justified in sustaining the addition of the income computed at 20% of balance amount credited to the above bank accounts Rs.30,83,000/ credited into, assesses's bank account, as sales/receipt from the business activities during and computing income at 20% of these sales/receipt which comes at Rs. 6,16,700/- under Sec 68 as unexplained credits.

6.

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in sustaining the interest amounting to Rs 892/ under the head Income from Other Sources. 7. Whether CIT(A) is justified in passing an order in breach of principle of natural justice.”

3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesse, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

3.

I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate the case before the learned

3 Umesh Shambharkar CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/12/2024

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →