DIPAK DATTARAM RAJAMANE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1064/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 February 2024Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by failing to provide points for determination and detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerned the rejection of an explanation for a cash deposit of Rs. 10.90 lakhs during demonetization. The assessee had not filed any explanation before the Assessing Officer or the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was procedurally flawed for not providing points for determination and detailed adjudication. The validity of rejecting the assessee's explanation for cash deposits without proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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: 26.02.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1064/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Dipak Dattaram The Income Tax Officer, Rajamane, A/p Posre Ward – 1, Income Tax Office, Budruk Tal Khed, Khed, Shivajinagar Jail Road, RATNAGIRI – 415 718 vs. Ratnagiri – 415 612 PAN ANYPR7383L Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Umeshkumar Madhukar Mali For Revenue : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055046700(1), dated 10.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties through their learned representatives that the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s explanation attributing cash deposit of Rs.10.90 lakhs during demonetization period. Mr.Gaurav Singh vehemently argued that the assessee had 2 ITA.No.1064/PUN./2023 not filed any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings.

3.

It is next noticed from perusal of para-11, page-6 in the CIT(A)'s order that “following the above explained rationale, the appeal stands dismissed” thereby not complying with sec.250(6) of the Act requiring him 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 CIT(A)-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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →