MS. FATEMA SHOEB SHUSSAIN ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -2(4), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 82/NAG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 September 2024AY 2010-2011Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was to ensure natural justice and fair play, considering the similar and contemporaneous issues from prior assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal summarily without a speaking order. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not represented before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to the appellant and whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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 Rachit Thakar
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Date of Hearing – 13/08/2024 Date of Order – 02/09/2024

O R D E R PER BENCH

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01/12/2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–II, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. Learned C.I.T.(A) erred in passing order without giving proper opportunity to appellant and passed the order exparte. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) erred in not passing the order on merits. 3] Learned A.O erred in initiating proceedings U/s.147 and issuing notice U/s. 148 is bad in law.

Fatima Shoeb Hussain ITA no.82/Nag./2018

4] Learned A.Oferred in holding that the assessee was the owner of Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. 5] Learned A.O. erred in adding Rs.9,10,910/- as a unexplained business income of the assessee. 6] Learned A.O. erred in adding Rs.9,10,910/- during the year as estimated profit at 8% on assumed of total credit entries i.e. Rs. 1,13,86,373/-. 7] Learned A.O. erred in estimating income from M/s. M.B. Travels of Rs.9,58,539/-. 8] Learned A.O. erred in adding Rs. 14,71,601/- as unexplained cash credits U/s.68 of Proprietory concern M/s. M.B. Travels. 9] Learned A.O, erred in adding Rs.4,39,000/- U/s.68 as unexplained cash credits of Maria Construction. 10] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.63,76,145/- U/s.69 as unexplained investment in House Property. 11] Learned A.O. erred in not properly consider assessee's submission and various documents filed before him. 12] Learned A.O. erred in not giving opportunity to put up there case before D.V.O. 13] Assessee craves leave to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing as may be necessary.

3.

During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that ther is a delay of 796 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. Being satisfied with the condonation petition filed by the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication. On a perusal of the records available before us, we find that there is no representation on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal summarily without passing a speaking order. For the sake of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) with direction to consider the orders passed by the Tribunal, ITAT, Nagpur Bench, in appeal being to 69/Nag./2015, for the Page | 2

Fatima Shoeb Hussain ITA no.82/Nag./2018 assessment year 2004–05 to 2009–10, and adjudicate the issues denovo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, since the issues for consideration are contemporaneous and similar. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee 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 02/09/2024

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →