RAMESH RAMRAO ZINJURDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1062/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 February 2024AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the evidence filed by the assessee, failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was against an order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities rejected the assessee's explanation for cash deposits of Rs. 40.71 lakhs, attributing them to a HUF.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the evidence filed by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits. Whether the lower appellate proceedings complied with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.02.2024Pronounced: 27.02.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1062/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2012-2013 Shri Ramesh Ramrao The Income Tax Officer, Zinjurde, N-9, H-Sector Ward – 1 (5), Jeevan Suman, 158/2, Shri Krishna Nagar, LIC Bldg., Town Centre, N-5, HUDCO, Aurangabad. vs. CIDCO, Jalgaon Road, PIN 431 003 Aurangabad – 431 003. PAN AAKPZ8517D Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054952249(1), dated 08.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s explanation attributing source of cash deposits of Rs.40.71 lakhs as coming from the corresponding HUF. Mr.Gaurav Singh vehemently argued that the assessee had not filed

2 ITA.No.1062/PUN./2023 any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings.

3.

It is next noticed from perusal of para-4, page-8 in the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee had duly filed some evidence before which have nowhere been rebutted in the lower appellate discussion running into a single para of five sentences i.e., para- 5.1, page-9 in the impugned order thereby not complying with sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

These assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →