ASHOK VITTHAL NACHANKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 602/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, as the AO had not responded to previous reminders. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue after considering the report and giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a government servant, had his assessment reopened based on information about cash payments for property and unexplained bank credits. The Assessing Officer made additions to his income, and the CIT(A)/NFAC granted partial relief.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming additions without a proper remand report from the Assessing Officer, despite the assessee submitting additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department by : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of hearing : 14-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 29-05-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a government servant, who filed his return of income on 11.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,34,350/-. Information was received from the Investigation Wing, Kolhapur that the assessee has purchased twin bungalows in Mirjole for Rs.7.50 lacs for which he made cash payments. Further, there were certain credit entries in his HDFC bank account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued. However, there was no response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act from the side of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, there was also no compliance from the side of the assessee to the statutory notices for which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 03.12.2018 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,17,870/-, wherein he made addition of Rs.7,72,500/- being the cost of investment for purchase of bungalow including the registration charges and Rs.13,11,020/- being the unexplained credits in the bank accounts.

3.

Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee filed certain additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, despite reminders issued to the Assessing Officer on 02.01.2024 and 21.02.2024, there was no response from the side of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC proceeded to decide the appeal and granted part relief to the assessee. So far as the addition of unexplained investment is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained an amount of Rs.6,72,500/- out of addition of Rs.7,72,500/-. Similarly, out of addition of Rs.13,11,020/- u/s 69A of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained an amount of Rs.4,09,245/-.

4.

Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.6,72,500/- out of addition made by the AO Rs.7,72,500/- being investment in Property as unexplained, not accepting the explanation of the appellant in this respect.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.4,09,245/- out of addition made by the AO Rs.13,11,020/- being the credits in his bank accounts, not accepting the explanation of the appellant in this respect.

5. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. I find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.7,72,500/- u/s 69A of the Act being the amount invested for purchase of bungalows at Rs.7.5 lacs and registration expenses of Rs.22,500/-. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.13,11,020/- u/s 69A of the Act being the unexplained credit entries in the two bank accounts maintained with HDFC bank and ICICI bank. I find before the Ld CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed certain additional evidences, based on which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, despite two reminders issued to the Assessing Officer, there was no response from the side of the Assessing Officer for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of the details available before him by observing as under: “3. Opportunity given by CIT(A):- Notices were issued to the appellant on 24.12.2018, 19.11.2019, 28.12.2020, 11.10.2023 and 20.10.2023 through the ITBA Portal. An enablement of communication email was also sent by NFAC on 01.11.2022. During the appeal proceedings, appellant submitted additional evidences, therefore a remand report was called from AO on 03.11.2023. Reminders was issued to the AO on 02.01.2024, 21.02.2024 and Issue letter was issued to range head. Since there is no reply from the AO, appeal is decided on merits.”

6. Since the assessee filed the various details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, based on which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and since the Assessing Officer has not submitted the remand report despite reminders, therefore, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to exercise his power by calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29th day of May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →