Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD
Before: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’ble
सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of : 20/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R
PER Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member
This appeal filed by Sri Kalyana Venkata Narasimha Murthy (“the assessee”) is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 25/01/2024, arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the A.Y.: 2020-21.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The orders of the Ld. CIT(A) insofar as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
The appellant denies himself to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 1,13,96,120/- as against the total income returned by the appellant at Rs. 87,46,120/- for the impugned assessment year 2020-21 on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The mandatory requirements which are since qua non for execution of warrant authorization as stipulated U/s. 132A of the Act were not complied with and consequently, the entire proceedings are liable to be annulled on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The warrant of authorisation executed purportedly U/s. 132A of the Act is non-est, illegal and invalid ad consequently, the impugned proceedings are vitiated on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The impugned assessment proceedings are bad in law as statutory notices are not issued and the assumption of jurisdiction is tainted on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding addition made b the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 26,50,000/- being alleged unexplained money on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, sale proceeds of flat in the year 2011-12 to the tune of Rs. 9,25,000/- were withheld by the appellant for future investments and consequently addition made is perverse on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the accumulated savings income of the past several years amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- were generated through agricultural produce and erred in treating the same as income by treating it as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by treating the appellant’s request for seeking time in gathering documents in support of the case as non-compliance, when the appellant has sought adjournment is multiple occasions but the same was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A), on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Further, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified by treating cash savings of appellant’s mother being senior citizen to the tune of Rs. 9,40,000/- which was retained with the appellant at the direction of his mother for safe keeping, such retention being treated as appellant’s income is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The appellant denies the liability to pay interest U/s. 234B of Rs. 4,71,485/- and 234C of Rs. 94,984/- in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the Ld. AO.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substantiate any of the grounds urged above.
For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is deriving salary income and income from House Property. Cash amounting to Rs. 26,50,000/- was seized by Cyber Crime Police from Sri T. Subrahmanyam on 09th May, 2019. Sri T. Subrahmanyam on his statement recorded on 10/05/2019 stated that the seized case belongs to the assessee which was given to him by the assessee for safe keeping . Subsequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 30/11/2020 admitting a total income of Rs. 87,46,120/-. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) initiated proceedings U/s. 153C of the Act in the case of the assessee and accordingly notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 14/06/2021. Finally, the Ld. AO treating the cash seized of Rs. 26,50,000/- as unexplained U/s. 69A of the Act, assessed the total income at Rs. 1,13,96,120/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee. However, the assessee did not make any response to the said notices. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee affirming the addition made by the Ld. AO.
5. Aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not send the notices to the email Id provided in Form-35, hence the assessee could not made any submission to those notices. By consolidating all the grounds, the Ld. AR also submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all said details with regard to cash seized of Rs. 26,50,000/- and conduct the proceedings diligently to get the matter disposed of on merits. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may kindly be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, we find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions as evident from para 6.1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). However, no body appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the dates of hearing nor filed any written submissions, whatsoever the reason. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal based on the material available on record. In this situation, we do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, in the interest of justice, as well as considering the nature of issue involved in the appeal, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits based on the materials on the record. Further, considering the non-compliance of the assessee during the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), we find it deem to impose cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee and the assessee is hereby directed to remit the same to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes .