Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2020-21 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, dt.25.09.2023 invoking proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”),
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
“1. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Hyderabad upholding the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer (A.O.) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of natural justice and fair play.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the adding back of the seized unaccounted cash as unexplained money u/s 69A by the A.O., even though the said seized cash was offered to tax as agreed upon in the return of income filed by the assessee and the audit report submitted by the assessee to the A.O was accepted by the A.O.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the A.O. by treating the excess stock found as unexplained investment u/s 69 even though an explanation with all evidences has been submitted by the assessee/appellant.
4. For these and other reasons which may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is therefore prayed that the additions made by the A.O which were confirmed by the CIT(A) in the exparte orders passed may kindly be deleted.”
The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, has not filed its return of income for AY 2020-21. A Search operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 17.03.2020 and during the course of search and seizure operation, cash of Rs.2,11,82,000/- was found and out of which Rs.2,09,00,000/- was seized as unaccounted business income of his proprietorship concern, M/s. Maa Jagdamba Jewellers, as assessee failed to produce any evidence for the same. Further, during the search, it was found that the assessee possessed an excess jewellery stock of Rs.2,34,79,050/-. For the excess stock found, assessee produced written submissions and evidence as required by the Assessing Officer. However, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and as the assessee has not filed his return of income, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 of the Act by making the addition of cash found during search of Rs.2,11,82,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and the excess stock found of Rs.2,34,79,050/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, thereby assessing the total income of the appellant at 4,69,74,877/- by the Assessing Officer and passed assessment order on 23.09.2021.
Feeling aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed the an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution and on merits.
Before us, ld.AR submitted that the assessee has failed to provide necessary information and appear before the lower authorities. Hence, the ld. AR requested the Bench to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. Ld.AR further submitted that as the assessee has sufficient cause from putting in appearance before the lower authorities, the matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication.
Per contra, the ld.DR has not raised any objection for remanding the matter back to the file of lower authorities.
7 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record and also the orders passed by the lower authorities. On perusal of the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A), we found that ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in his assessment framed on 23.09.2021. The merits of the assessee’s appeal before the ld.CIT(A) have neither been discussed nor decided by the ld.CIT(A). From para 6 of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is clear that ld.CIT(A) was forced to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record, as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee even after granting several opportunities. In view of the above reasons, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund which shall be payable within one month or from the date of receipt of this order or whichever is earlier.
The assessee shall be at liberty to file documents, if any, as required for proving his case and the Assessing Officer shall consider the evidences, if any, filed by the assessee. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall examine those documents / evidence filed by the assessee and also the other documents available on record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. We have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as we are setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th February, 2024.