PURNAND RAMCHANDRA MISHRA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 281/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 November 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

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

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without considering the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the Assessing Officer had proper jurisdiction to assess the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta
For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Date of Hearing – 18/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 07/06/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019–20.

2.

The following grounds have been raised by the assessee:–

“1. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction to assess the assessee u/s 143(3), as the notice u/s 143(2) was issue beyond the time limit prescribed for issue of notice. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.

2 Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra

3.

That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, Assessing Officer has failed to prove that assessee is owner of money found Rs. 67,50,000/- and thus has erred in applying provision of Sec 69A to held that Rs.67,50,000/- is the deemed income of assessee.

4. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the Assessing has erred in holding that Shri Anand Pugaliya is not the owner of Rs. 67,50,000/- in the circumstances when Assessing Officer himself accepts books of account of Shri Anand Pugaliya in his own case in the order passed u/s 143(3) which evidences the payment of Rs. 67,50,000/- to the assessee.

5.

That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the assessee is owner of money found Rs. 67,50,000/- when the Department itself in a proceeding under Prohibition of Benami Act held that assessee is not the owner of money found at Rs. 67,50,000/-. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, whether a person can simultaneously held to be owner of cash u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a benamidar of the same cash u/s 2(9)(D) of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 by the Income Tax Department. 7. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and law applicable thereto, CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and failed to passed order on merits, which is against the provision of Sec. 250 and decided case laws. 8. That, the assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the course of hearing.”

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 appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished

3 Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

3. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We 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, we am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his case before the learned 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 28/11/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →