PRAVIN MOHANRAO SHETKAR,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2, LATUR, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 508/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 April 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of not receiving notices due to belonging to a mofussil area and requested an opportunity to present their case with additional evidence. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2012-13. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 after discovering a cash deposit of Rs. 10,95,100/- in the assessee's bank account. The assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144, bringing the cash deposit to tax under section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was properly served with notices and whether an opportunity should be granted to present additional evidence regarding the source of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Pronounced: 19.04.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Addl. JCIT(A), Udaipur dated 15.01.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and had not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 voluntarily under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The AO had come to know that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.10,95,100/- in savings bank held with IDBI bank and believed that income had escaped assessment of tax. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2019. He thus brought to tax the cash deposit of Rs.10,95,100/- invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order has confirmed the action of the AO for non-prosecution.

4.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection.

5.

When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR.

6.

Heard the ld. Sr.DR and carefully examined the facts of the case. The assessment in this case was completed u/s.144 r.w.s. of the Act. The appellant in the grounds of appeal had assailed that the he belonged to mofussil area and had no knowledge about the notices served via e-mail through ITBA. He therefore could not cause any appearance before the lower authorities. The appellant also requested for admission of additional evidence in support of sources of cash deposit made. He thus prayed for granting one more opportunity to represent his case effectively. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the matter be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 19th day of April, 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 →