KOMAL SATISH GULANI,VADODARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 724/AHD/2024Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 October 2024AY 2012-13Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal due to non-submissions. The matter was remanded to the AO to issue fresh notices and complete the assessment proceedings de novo, with the assessee directed to comply with all notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was summarily dismissed for non-compliance with notices. The assessee also did not appear before the AO. The assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to make due compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's actions without proper opportunity to be heard and by treating property purchase and cash deposits as unexplained investments/money. The primary issue was the summary dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh N. Dhanani, CA and Shri Mehul C. Kishnani, CA
Hearing: 10/10/2024Pronounced: 10/10/2024

Asstt.Year : 2012-13 Komal Satish Gulani ITO, Ward-3(1)(1) 170, Pratham Residency Vs Vadodara. B/h. Rukmani Party Plot Waghodia Road Gujarat 390 019. PAN : AZKPG 7267 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee by Shri Jayesh N. Dhanani, CA and Shri Mehul C. Kishnani, CA Revenue by : Shri Ravindra, SR.DR सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.08.2023 for the Asst.Year 2012-13 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in the appeal against the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A).

1.

The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Baroda ["the AO"] without giving proper opportunity of being heard.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Baroda ["the AO"] by treating purchase of immovable property as a unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

2 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Baroda ["the AO"] by treating cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Your appellant craves a right to add to or amend, alter, substitute, delete or withdrawal or any of the grounds of appeal.

3. The main grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee. I find that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily owing to non-submissions/response in response to the notices issued on 7.1.2021, 7.11.2022, 2.8.2023 and 10.8.2023.

Before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the Revenue authorities to complete the appellate proceedings. However, the ld.DR, objected to the same in principle.

4.

I find that the assessee has also not attended before the AO. However, in the fitness of thing, the matter is remanded to the AO where the AO shall issue notice to the assessee afresh and complete assessment proceedings de novo. The assessee shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue authorities from time to time.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Dictated on the Open Court, typed and pronounced on 10th October, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →