ALOKE GOSWAMI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD, BHIWADI, BHIWADI ALWAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 388/JP/2023
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 388/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Aloke Goswami Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 1000 Block-S, Hill View Vs. Ward, Bhiwadi Society Thara, Tijara LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMKPG 9349 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashish Krishna jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13/09/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 21/09/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 09/05/2023 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2011-12 which in turn arise from the order dated 10.12.2018 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Bhiwadi.
The assessee has marched this appeal on the following
2 ITA No. 388/JP/2023 Aloke Goswami vs. ITO
grounds:-
“1 Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT (A)"] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] is perverse, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and bad in law.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act without providing opportunity of being heard and passing an ex-parte order.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. AO has erred in passing the ex-parte order and sustaining the impugned addition of Rs.23,23,280/-.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 21,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 2,12,182/- on Account of salary income and Rs. 1,094/- on account of interest from HDFC Bank.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee
has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration.
As per ITS data/details available with the department, the ld. AO
noticed that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating amount
of Rs. 37,76,000/- in his saving bank account maintained with
HDFC Bank Ltd and the assessee also received salary (other than
Govt. Employees) amount of Rs. 2,12,182/-. As the assessee has
3 ITA No. 388/JP/2023 Aloke Goswami vs. ITO not filed ITR for the relevant year proceedings u/s 147 of the Act
was initiated after recording proper reasons and notice u/s 148 was
issued to the assessee on 29.03.2018 and the same was duly
served to the assessee through affixture on the available
addressee of assessee. The assessee did not respond to the
notice issued and did not furnish the reasons as to why cash
deposit in saving bank account should not be treated as
unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act ultimately due to none
appeared or non compliance, the assessment order passed u/s
144 read with section 147 of the Act making addition of
Rs.21,10,000/- on account of cash deposit at Rs. 1,094/- added on
account of saving bank account and Rs. 2,12,182/- was added on
account of salary income and thereby the assessment was
completed ex-party.
Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee
preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. A propose to the
grounds so raised even before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee did
not respond to the various notices issued, the relevant finding of
the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the issue noted as under:-
4 ITA No. 388/JP/2023 Aloke Goswami vs. ITO
“In the present appeal also neither the appellant nor his AR could have furnished/uploaded any evidence in support of his claim raised in the grounds of appeal nor had any compliance filed against above notice dated 20.04.2023. In view of above discussion, I am unable to found any evidence and logic in support of appellant’s claim stating AO’s action being erroneous. Rather the submission of the appellant vis-à-vis grounds of appeal is treated as ambiguous and baseless.
In view of the discussion in preceding paragraph, I find that AO was justified in completing assessment after addition of Rs. 23,23,276/- as above u/s 144 of the IT. Act. Considering above the said additions stand confirmed.
Conclusion: In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.”
Aggrieved from the said ex-party order of the ld. CIT(A),
assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal on the grounds
as reiterated here in above in para 2. A propose to the grounds so
raised the assessee has filed a paper book containing the following
evidences in support of the contentions so raised:
S. No. Particulars Submitted before Page No. 1 Copy of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated Ld. AO 1 29.03.2018 2 Copy of reasons recorded Ld. AO 2 3 Copy of the sale deed Ld. CIT(A), NFAC 3-12 4 Copy of the bank statement reflecting cash Ld. AO 13-20 deposit 5 Copy of purchase deed Ld. CIT(A), NFAC 21-32 6 Copy of notice issued by Ld. NFAC dated Ld. CIT(A), NFAC 33-34 20.04.2023 7 Copy of reply submitted on 09.05.2023 in Ld. CIT(A), NFAC 35-37 response to notice dated 20.04.2023
5 ITA No. 388/JP/2023 Aloke Goswami vs. ITO Relying on the above document so filed, the ld. AR of the
assessee prayed that though both the orders of lower authorities
are ex-party but looking to the fact that the assessee has sold the
house property and received the cash and the said cash was
deposited in his HDFC Bank account. From that money the
assessee also purchased the residential property. Therefore, if the
assessee allowed one more opportunity, he may submit the details
so as to concede the merits of the case, even though the
assessee may be lethargic but in the interest of justice, the
assessee may please be allowed one more opportunity to plead
the merits of his case.
Per contra, the ld. DR objected to the prayer of the assessee
and heavily relied upon the finding of lower authority and prayed
that the assessee has not complied to the notices and his prayer to
set aside the case does not require to be entertained.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material
placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee is non
government salaried employed. Though the ld. DR objected to the
prayer of the assessee but looking to the fact of the case that
6 ITA No. 388/JP/2023 Aloke Goswami vs. ITO assessee being small person working in private organization has
sold his house property and deposited the cash into bank account
and from that money purchased the property again. We find force
in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that if the
arguments placed if tested and verified by the ld. AO then in that
case the cash deposited of Rs. 21,00,000/- can considered as
explained and only chargeability to be sealed and allowability of the
deduction of section 54 of the Act on account of purchase of house
property to be verified by the ld. AO looking to the various case
laws of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the assessee should not be
deprived of the justice, and he should be heard on merit rather than
to dismiss the appeal on the technical reasons.
7.1 Considering that prayer of the assessee, we find force in the
arguments advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee and
considering the totality of the facts we consider deem fit to remand
back the matter before the ld. AO to decide afresh on merit.
Therefore, considering that contentions and ongoing through the
orders of the lower authorities we are of the considered view that
the assessing officer should hear the assessee’s submission on
merits after affording proper opportunity of being heard and pass
7 ITA No. 388/JP/2023 Aloke Goswami vs. ITO speaking order in the matter in accordance with the law. At the
same time assessee is directed to represent and present all the
facts before the assessing officer and should not ask for the
adjournment on frivols grounds. At this stage we remand back the
issues raised without commenting upon the merits of the case and
the ld. AO is directed to complete the assessment as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/09/2023 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judcial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21/09/2023 *Ganesh Kumar, PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Aloke Goswami, Tijara, Rajasthan 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax Officer, Ward, Bhiwadi 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 388/JP/2023} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
