Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘B’ PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Appearances Assessee by : None for the Assessee [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 26/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01/10/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This twin appeals of the assessee are instituted u/s 253(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [now onwards ‘the Act’] challenging the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre [now onwards ‘NFAC’] passed u/s 250 of the Act vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1062561265(1) & 1062601734(1) dt. 13/03/2024 & 14/03/2024 for the assessment year 2013-14 [now onwards ‘AY’] ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6
Tapaswini Mangesh Mhaske Vs ITO & 1302/PUN/2024 2. These appeals were called twice; none appeared at the behest of assessee nor there is any letter of adjournment on record. On the primary briefing from the Revenue, we deem it fit to invoke rule 24 of ITAT- Rules, 1963 and proceed to adjudicate ex-parte dismissal of appeal by the learned first appellate authority. Advanced accordingly.
Since facts & solitary issue involved in these appeals are identical, common & interrelated, on Ld. DR’s request, for the sake of brevity these are heard together for a common and consolidated order.
We note that, the assessee was identified as non-filer in whose case the information that the assessee deposited cash of ₹10.00Lakhs into her bank account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra [now onwards ‘BOM’] and purchased an immovable property worth ₹82.26Lakhs was received, pursuant to which the case of the assessee after recording reasons & obtaining prior approval from the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act vide notice dt. 04/03/2020 was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. In the event of non-compliance and effective failure on the part of the assessee to substantiate the nature & sources of such cash deposits & immovable property purchased by her, the Ld. AO culminated the proceeding ex-parte on 28/03/2022 to the best of his judgement by bringing to tax the entire amount of cash deposited in BOM as ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6
Tapaswini Mangesh Mhaske Vs ITO & 1302/PUN/2024 unexplained money and value of immovable property purchased by her as unexplained investment and framed the assessment accordingly u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
Consequent to framing of aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO vide show cause notice dt. 29/09/2021 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated the penalty proceedings. The notice when remained unattended, the Ld. AO vide notices dt. 16/12/2021, 27/01/2022 & 09/02/2022 granted further opportunity to explain her case on the basis of evidential/deprecative documents, however the exercise was futile. In the absence of any plausible reply and corroborative evidences, the Ld. AO completed the proceedings ex-parte by imposing a penalty equivalent to 100% of sought to be evaded owning to wilful concealment of income.
Assessee aggrieved by both ex-parte assessment & imposition of penalty instituted separate appeals before first appellate authority, which also came dismissed ex-parte owning to assesses’s failure to prove the claims with corroborative & convincing evidences. Aggrieved by such ex-parte orders of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee came in present twin appeals challenging the adjudication first on the ground of violation of principle of nature justice later on its merits.
ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6
Tapaswini Mangesh Mhaske Vs ITO & 1302/PUN/2024 7. Without touching the merits of these cases; we have heard the Ld. DR on ground number 2 of both the appeals which commonly alleges violation of principle of natural justice owning to insufficient opportunity which resulted into ex-parte dismissal of appeals and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record, considered the facts in the light of settled legal position. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate postal delay of 21-22 days in instituting these separate appeals, we placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same holding as ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 8. We note that; against the order of assessment & penalty order passed on 29/09/2021 & 16/03/2022 a separate appeal were filed before the Ld. NFAC on 29/03/2022 & 29/03/2022 respectively. In response to two bullet notices dt. 24/01/2024 & 06/02/2024 the assessee made written submission explaining the nature & sources available with her. While contesting the order of assessment the assessee through written ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6
Tapaswini Mangesh Mhaske Vs ITO & 1302/PUN/2024 submission claimed that; (a) the source of cash deposits made into BOM represent balance of past saving earned out of freelance Tuition Classes & partly proceeds of Mutual Fund units (b) the source of immoveable property registered in joint name with her husband was funded out of finance/loan availed from financial institution wherein the assessee contribution was limited to ₹1.00Lakh only. However, in the absence of further opportunity the appellant could lay no corroborative & cogent evidential documents to prove her claim. The lack of reasonable opportunity led to ex-parte dismissal of both the appeals.
Admittedly, the assessee neither represented her case/s with documentary evidences during the course of assessment/penalty proceedings nor could she lay any evidences during the course of first appellate proceedings. Both these proceedings indeed culminated ex- parte without appellant’s assistance and in absence of cogent evidences. Therefore, we find strong force in the request of appellant assessee to set-aside both the impugned orders for violation of principle of natural justice owning to insufficient opportunities granted to it to prove the claims made by her in the written submissions placed on record explaining the very nature & sources available with her against the amount of cash deposited & investment into immovable property etc.
ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6
Tapaswini Mangesh Mhaske Vs ITO & 1302/PUN/2024 10. Relying on Hon’ble High court of Patna judgement in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ (2003) 262 ITR 377 (Pat)’, we are mindful to hold that the appellant assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate her claims therefore the impugned adjudications culminated by the Ld. NFAC without such evidential documents not only violated the principle of natural justice but rendered irregular, therefore set-aside. In consequence without offering any comments on merits of these cases, we set-aside both impugned orders and remit the files back to the Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass a separate speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act after according three effective hearing to assessee separately. The ground no. 2 thus stands allowed.
In result these twin appeals are PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISITCAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, orders pronounced in the open court on this Tuesday, 01st October, 2024.
-S/d- -S/d- VINAY BHAMORE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 01st October, 2024 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. 4. The CIT(A) Concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘B’, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 6