ABDUL ASIF ABDUL KADIR ABDUL,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD-1,AKOLA, AKOLA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
ITA no.400/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul M/s. Ashmeera Enterprises Nafees Park, Near Hussaini Madarsa ……………. Appellant Washim Byepass Road, Akola 444 002 PAN – AICPA5941J v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–1, Akola Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Date of Hearing – 01/07/2024 Date of Order – 01/07/2024
O R D E R PER V.D. RAO, J.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 10/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul ITA no.400/Nag./2023
The appellant was prevented on account of reasonable cause in making detailed submission before Hon'ble CIT(A) and thus dismissal of appeal ought to be set aside for providing sufficient opportunity. 4. Notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and consequent reassessment framed is liable to be cancelled. 5. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.1,72,06,081/- u/s 69A and tax levied u/s 115BBE of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unsustainable and unwarranted. 6. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.172.06 lacs being deposits in bank account without considering the withdrawals from bank account to hold the same as unexplained money is unjustified and unsustainable. 7. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 172.06 lacs being deposits in bank account in respect to transaction of business activity as unexplained money is unjustified. unwarranted and excessive. 8. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”
When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).
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).
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) gave opportunities to the assessee, ultimately, the order
Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul ITA no.400/Nag./2023
passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, we are 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 Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer 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 01/07/2024
Sd/- Sd/- K.M. ROY V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 01/07/2024 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 Page | 3
Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul ITA no.400/Nag./2023
Date Initial 1. Dictated on 05.07.2024 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 09.07.2024 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed – – JM/AM before the second member 4. Draft discussed / approved – – JM/AM by Second Member 5. Approved Draft comes to 11.07.2024 Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Date of pronouncement 01.07.2024 Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 11.07.2024 Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9. Date of dispatch of Order
