MR. SANJAY SHYAMRAO KADAM,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 702/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the orders were passed ex parte and the assessee, being illiterate, could not check email notices. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income and did not comply with notices from the AO and CIT(A). The AO made an addition of cash deposits as unexplained income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte assessment and appellate orders should be set aside due to the assessee's inability to access hearing notices and the need for a fresh opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Bhandari
For Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha
Hearing: 13.06.2024Pronounced: 13.06.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.02.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.10,19,500/- with Union Bank of India, Karjat Branch, Ahmednagar, issued notice u/s.142(1) on 09.03.2018 calling upon the appellant to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 which was duly served upon him. The said notice remained uncomplied with. The assessee had also not complied with the hearing notices. In the circumstances, the AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.10,19,500/- as unexplained money and assessed to tax u/s.115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

The ld. AR submits that the appellant could not cause any appearance either before the AO/CIT(A) owing to the fact that hearing notices was sent on e-mail and through ITBA portal. Since the appellant is an illiterate, he could not check e-mail. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the matter be restored to the file of AO in the interest of justice.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection for remand of the matter.

7.

I heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Admittedly, the assessment as well as appellate orders were passed ex parte. Considering the above fact and the submissions made on behalf of assessee explaining the reasons for non-compliance with hearing notices both before the AO and CIT(A), I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of AO for denovo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I order accordingly.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of June, 2024.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →