VISHAL DADASAHEB BURUNGALE ,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD 3 SATARA, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 571/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 April 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication. This was due to the assessee's claim of not being informed of hearing notices sent to their consultant's email.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual agriculturist, failed to file a return of income for AY 2012-13. The AO made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 17,10,500/- cash deposit after the assessee did not comply with notices. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the AO's action for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering the circumstances presented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147

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 Pramod S. Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Somnath M. Wajale
Pronounced: 24.04.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 15.02.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as under:

The appellant is an individual and no regular return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information through ITS Data noticed that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.17,10,500/- in the account maintained with Axis Bank. He accordingly issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 29.03.2019 which was duly served on the assessee. The appellant had neither complied with the notice u/s.148 nor the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment order ex parte by making the addition of cash deposit of Rs.17,10,500/- vide order dated 18.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO 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 is an agriculturist and an illiterate person. He further submits that the appellant could not cause any appearance before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC as the communication of hearing notices were sent on e-mail of the consultant who failed to inform the appellant. He thus prayed for an opportunity to the appellant by remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. DR has no serious objection for remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication.

7.

Heard both the sides and carefully examined the facts of the case. Admittedly, the appellant did not cause any appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant ex parte. It is submitted that the notices were sent on the email id of the tax consultant who at that point of time did not inform the assessee about the notices of hearing. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to remit the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. I order accordingly.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on this 24th day of April, 2024.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →