Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumit Lalchand Pahuja, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), House No.2719, Gandhinagar, Kolhapur. Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416119. PAN : BOHPP0806D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 27.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.12.2023 passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in confirming additions of Rs.1,03,90,206/- when the notice issued u/s 148 was bad in Law.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in confirming additions of Rs.1,03,90,206/- when notice issued u/s 148 was based on erroneous facts and without proper application of mind by Assessing Officer as the assessee did not held any account with M/s Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in confirming additions of Rs.1,03,90,206/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A, when assessee did not hold any account alleged society.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The appellant craves for leave to amend, modify or add to any of the above grounds of appeal and / or take any additional ground of appeal, if necessary.”
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act with prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune. A notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 31.03.2021 by post and served upon the assessee on 03.04.2021. The reason for reopening the assessment is that, a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act was conducted in the case of M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., on 26.05.2017. During the course of such search, it was found that the huge money was deposited in the bank accounts maintained by said society. During the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee deposited substantial unexplained cash amounting to Rs.1,03,90,206/- in his saving bank account. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. In spite of request made though notices u/s 148 / 142(1) and show cause 14.02.2022, the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposit/ investment to the tune of Rs.1,03,90,206/- along-with supporting documents. Therefore, in absence of any details the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,03,90,206/- treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the said unexplained income of Rs.1,03,90,206/-.
Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & since the assessee remained absent the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide impugned order dated 28.12.2023.
5. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal.
When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.
Ld. DR supported the order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and requested to confirm the same.
8. We have heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order in contravention of section 250(6) of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and only because the assessee could not appear before him the appeal was dismissed without deciding the grounds of appeal. It is also seen that the notices were issued through ITBA portal only. It is further found that the ex-parte assessment was made during the covid pandemic period. In the grounds of appeal it was claimed by the assessee that he did not have any bank account in Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.. From the perusal of assessment order it is also apparent that the Assessing Officer also did not brought any specific information regarding cash deposit by the assessee in which bank account number and on what dates etc. We therefore find force in the grounds of appeal of the assessee and without going into merits of the case deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudicating the appeal afresh on merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of