MANISH SOBHAGMAL BAJAJ,CHANDRAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 03/06/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“That the Commissioner of Income tax appeal order in confirming the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chandrapur for the assessment year 2017-2018 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act is quite contrary to law against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Income Tax officer added the entire bank made deposits during demonetisation of currency notes the of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- during the
Shri Manish Sobhagmal Bajaj ITA no.237/Nag./2023
period from 09-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 was added as an income of the petitioner under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as an unexplained money. The petitioner deposited the currency of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- on declaration of demonetization by Hon ble prime Minister on 08-11-2016 at night and there after the banks were not operating for two consecutive days The petitioner deposited demanetization currency in the bank on 11-11-2016 which were in possession from out of the sale proceeds, received from buyers prior to demonetization declaration and were deposited in the bank immediately on 11-11- 2016 Rs.24,93,500/- and on 16-11- 2016 Rs.4,99,000/-. Thus the deposit during the above period is from out of sale proceeds prior to demonetization declaration and cannot be added as an Income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Income Tax Officer, admits in the assessment order dt.26-12-2019, that the petitioner is carrying on business in trading of sugar and runs medical shop. petitioner submitted The the explanation through e-proceeding facility, which the income tax officer, failed to bring on record or dealt in the assessment, which resulted in to addition. 4. Having declared the income on the sales turnover, again adding bank deposits, as an income is quite contrary to law and it is nothing but double addition, which is unwarranted. 5. Any other ground or grounds may be urged at the time of hearing of the main appeal.”
When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case.
On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities inspite of that the assesse has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not filed relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
I have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) gave opportunities to the assessee, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Even before the Assessing Officer also, the assessee did not appear. Therefore, I
Shri Manish Sobhagmal Bajaj ITA no.237/Nag./2023
am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one more 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 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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/08/2024
Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 21/08/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur
