Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These two appeals are filed by two different assesses against two separate orders dated 31.08.2023 & 25.10.2023 respectively passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
“1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 31.08.2023 for AY 2012-13 by NFAC (CIT(A), Delhi (for short 'NFAC") upholding the addition aggregating to Rs.6,83,07,340/- made by A.O consisting of Rs.2,89,10,240/- towards sales to Vama Amratlal Enterprises Ltd. and Rs.3,93,97,100/- towards cash deposit in bank is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural Justice. 1.2 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not allowing sufficient opportunity to the appellant during the appellate proceedings, though there was sufficient cause for failure to furnish explanation. The NFAC had given only a single effective opportunity before disposing off this appeal which was grossly in violation of the principles of natural Justice, apart from the quantum of addition involved. The NFAC has made casual approach and passed a non-speaking order, so that it is liable to be quashed. 2.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 and notice u/s. 148 were illegal and without jurisdiction since the condition precedent were not satisfied. 3.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding addition aggregating to Rs. 6,83,07,340/- made by A.O consisting of Rs.2,89,10,240/- towards sales to Vama Amratlal Enterprises Ltd. and Rs.3,93,97,100/- towards cash deposit in bank. 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. NFAC ought not to have upheld the addition aggregating to Rs.6,83,07,340/ made by A.O consisting of Rs.2,89,10,240/- towards sales to Vama Amratlal Enterprises Ltd. and Rs.3,93,97,100/- towards cash deposit in bank. 3.3 The observations made and conclusion reached by both the lower authorities is contrary to the facts of the case so that the same is not admitted by the appellant.
4.1 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative the impugned addition aggregating to Rs. 6,83,07,340/- is highly excessive and calls for substantial reduction.
It is, therefore, prayed that the additions upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.”
The case of the assessee was reopened for scrutiny assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after getting the prior approval of the Authorities for the reasons recorded therein. The original return under Section 139(1) of the Act dated 28.09.2012 was filed by the assessee at a total income of Rs.3,38,990/-. The scrutiny assessment through CASS under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26.02.2015 thereby determining total income at Rs.4,53,720/-. The reassessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 26.12.2018 determining the income at Rs.17,92,210/-. At the time of reopening under Section 147 of the Act, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2019 and in response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income at Rs.3,38,993/-. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03.10.2019 was issued. The assessee filed reply on 23.10.2019. Subsequently, all the statutory notices were issued and the assessee filed the detailed reply. The Assessing Officer, after taking cognisance of the replies and submissions alongwith details, made addition of Rs.2,89,10,240/- under Section 68 of the Act thereby observing that the said amount remains unexplained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,93,97,100/- regarding the cash deposits thereby observing that the same remained unexplained in the hands of the assessee.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) without giving any opportunity of hearing has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and also has not taken into consideration the details of the submissions filed before the Assessing Officer as well as the grounds taken by the assessee before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A).
The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that on page no.33 & 34 of the order of the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has given only two notices for hearing before the CIT(A) but has not mentioned whether these notices were properly served to the assessee or not. The first notice was issued during the Covid Pandemic and the second notice was issued on 05.07.2023 and without giving any opportunity to the assessee passed the order on 31.08.2023 thereby passing ex-parte order without determining any merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested before the CIT(A), after taking cognisance of the evidences as well as the details filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Thus, is partly allowed for statistical purpose. in this appeal as well the assessee therein has not been given opportunity of hearing and only the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without giving any observation on merit contested by the assessee therein. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee before the CIT(A) as per the Income Tax Statute and the details given by the assessee therein before the Revenue Authorities. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Thus, is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 4th September, 2024.