ABIDBHAI UMARBHAI QURESHI,BANASKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (PREVIUOSLY WARD-4), PALANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1296/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2024AY 2012-13Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by allowing the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trader of live animals, failed to attend hearings before the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The appeal concerns additions made for cash payments disallowed under Section 40A(3) and transportation expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were justified, considering the assessee's illiteracy and failure to comply with procedural requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3),Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMARMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, AR
Hearing: 18/11/2024Pronounced: 22/11/2024

आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2012-13 Abidbhai Umarbhai Qureshi The ITO बनाम/ At Basu PO: Vasu Ward-1 v/s. Near Adarsh Vidhyalay (previously Ward-4) Ta. Vadgam, Palanpur – 385 001 Dist.Banaskantha – 385 526 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAJPQ 4002 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Samir Vora, AR Revenue by : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

PER DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CITA] , National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in proceeding u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 16/05/2024 passed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee are as under:- [1] The Ld. CIT(A) was grievously erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 31.65,100/- being cash payment disallowed u/s. 40A(3) of the IT Act, without looking to Rule 6DD which is illegal and bad in law. Abidbhai Umarbhai Qureshi vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 [2] The Ld. CIT(A) was grievously erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 11,25,000/- being Transportation expenses, as the Vehicle No. GJ

15. XX 832 has come in transport business on 24.01.2013 as it has been registered on 24.01.2013, which is illegal and bad in law.

The appellant submits that the Ld. A.O. has taken from Investigation reply and the investigation period is between 2011-2014. But the Truck was recorded in the next year and on proportionate without verifying, the transport expenses were disallowed.

[3] The appellant therefore requests your Honour to kindly delete the abovementioned additions of Rs. 31,65,100/- & Rs. 11,25,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), looking to the merits of the case.

[4] The appellant craves the right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated herein above either before or at the time of hearing.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trader of live animals and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of buffalos and cows. The assessee did not attend for the hearing on various dates towards the notices issued by the AO which led to passing of an order dated 14/11/2019 u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. The assessee has also failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A), which led to passing of an ex-part order rejecting the appeal of the assessee.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Before us, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that given opportunity due compliance would be made before the AO, where the preliminary default has occurred. It was pleaded that the assessee is an illiterate person dealing with live stock of animals and, hence not well-versed with the Income Tax procedures. On going through the record, we find that no prejudice to be caused to the Revenue. Therefore, the matter is remanded Abidbhai Umarbhai Qureshi vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 back to the file of the AO for De novo assessment, after making proper verification and adjudication of the issues as per the Income Tax Act.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →