VINOD BRIJMOHANDAS AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 432/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording proper opportunity. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing the assessee to file evidence and ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was heard. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal after the assessee failed to provide required documents and respond to notices, despite multiple adjournments. The original assessment involved an addition of Rs. 86,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the addition under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.09.2024Pronounced: 08.10.2024

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law as well as facts while passing Ex- parte enter in appeal against the principle of natural justice. The Appellant was not allowed proper opportunity of being heard as only one notice is not replied by appellant and the CIT (Appeal) being quasi- judicial authority rejected the appeal and passed ex-parte order without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to appellant. The Appellant hereby prey to your honors to set aside case and resorted the case to CIT(Appeal).

2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law as well as in fact while rejecting appellant objection to Ld. A.O. for reason to believe for initiation of scrutiny u/s.147. The reason to believe provided to assessee was incorrect. The assessee has objected that reason to believe on which assessment is opened under Section 148 was incorrect and the Ld. A.O (NFAC) has rejected the objection of assessee during assessment and therefore on the basis of law and fact of the case the assessment u/s. 148 initiated on wrong reason to believe is required to cancel.

3. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law as well as in fact while confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (NFAC) in the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B, that is passed without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. A.O has passed high pitch assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B is against the principle of natural justice and therefore bad in law and required to be cancelled.

4. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred on law as well as on fact while confirming the addition of Rs.86,50,000/- made by Ld. A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. The Addition is confirmed on conjecture and surmises and on the basis of law and fact of the case the same is required to be deleted.”

3.

The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.10,93,180/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 31.03.2021 for reopening assessment. Return of income was filed against the notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30.04.2021 thereby declaring total income of Rs.10,93,180/-. The assessee objected the reasons to believe and the same was disposed of on 19.03.2022. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s replies, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had received unexplained cash credit from M/s Anr Finance Limited, Gautamsingh Shiv Singh Zala, M/s. Mainak Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. and Sharad Enterprise aggregating to Rs.86,50,000/- during the year under consideration and, therefore, the said amount was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and the assessee could not produce the documentary evidences before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have head both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee, despite giving opportunity before the CIT(A), has not responded except taking adjournments on three occasions and has also not filed the details as required. Therefore, the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. It will be appropriate to direct the assessee to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues, after taking cognisance of the evidences filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) will decide the case on merit as per Income Tax Statute. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. It is further directed that if the assessee does not co- operate with the proceedings with the CIT(A), the CIT(A) is at liberty to take appropriate steps and decide the case on merit as per Income Tax Statute.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 8th October, 2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →