DIXITKUMAR BHIKHALAL MORKHIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 793/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a change in CA. It set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after imposing a cost on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietor, failed to file his income tax return and did not respond to notices. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 50,24,243/- under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order and CIT(A) order should be set aside due to non-prosecution and delay in filing the appeal, and if the assessee has provided sufficient cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 139(1),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Dixitkumar Bhikhalal The ITO, Morkhiya Ward-2(2)(1), C/o. Divyang Shah & Co. Vs Ahmedabad Chartered Accountants, 201, 2nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006 PAN: CEFPM9022P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Maulik Kansara, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 30-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the ex-parte appellate order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the exparte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Dixitkumar Bhikhalal Morkhiya vs. ITO (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of Silky Fashion World. For the Asst. Year 2017-18, assessee has not filed his Return of Income u/s. 139(1) or in response to 142(1) notice. The assessee made cash deposit of Rs.16,49,790/- during demonetization period. Hence a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain the details, which was not responded by the assessee and resulted in making addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 50,24,243/- namely cash deposit in his bank account for the entire financial year.

3.

Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

4.

Aggrieved against the same, assessee is in appeal before us with a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained that the delay is because of change in Chartered Accountant thereby delay to be condoned. The assessee also filed a Paper Book placing on record, the bank details of the assessee and other details namely Shop and Establishment Certificate of Silky Fashion World, rental agreement, professional tax registration certificate, copy of the ledger account of purchase of Silk Sarees from various parties and requested to condone the delay and set aside the assessment to the file of Assessing Officer for passing fresh order on merits.

A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Dixitkumar Bhikhalal Morkhiya vs. ITO

5.

Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and requested to levy cost to condone the delay.

6.

We have perused the materials available on record as well as the Affidavit and Written Submissions filed by the assessee. We find that a reasonable cause for filing the appeal with a delay of 24 days, hence the same is hereby condoned. Since the assessee has filed all relevant documents before this Tribunal, we deem it fit to set aside the same by imposing cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable by the assessee to Prime Minister National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days of receipt of this order copy. On production of the receipt of the same, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →