BRIJESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1) (OLD WARD) WARD-2(1)(2) (NEW WARD), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 297/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 July 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification of both legal and merit issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a low income, but the Revenue observed large commodity transactions. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition based on an estimated profit margin, as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to be heard before the ex-parte assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.07.2024Pronounced: 24.07.2024

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 ex-parte.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts in confirming addition of Rs.82,72,400/- made by Ld. AO being profit estimated @ 0.25% on commodity transactions without any evidences, whereas appellant had in fact incurred losses.

Additional ground of appeal

3. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on fact in reopening assessment u/s.147 on the basis of insufficient, incorrect, vague and invalid reasons recorded for reopening.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 2 of 3 3. The assessee filed original return of income dated 18.12.2012 declaring total income at Rs.30,213/-. As per information available in Individual Transaction Statement (ITS), the Revenue observed that the assessee made transactions amounting to Rs.3,30,89,60,026/- in the commodity exchange during the Assessment Year 2012-13. The case was reopened after recording reasons for reopening and obtaining prior approval from the Competent Authority. The assessee has not responded to the notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made addition of Rs.82,72,400/- thereby determining at 0.25% of the total transaction of Rs.3,30,89,60,026 as income of the assessee.

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 there is a delay of six days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed the request for condonation of delay. After going through the same, it appears that the delay is genuine and hence condoned.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and hence it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification of the legal issue as well as issue on merit. For the non-appearance before the Revenue Authorities and the CIT(A), the Ld. AR submitted that the email id. of the earlier Tax Consultant was not properly updated and notices issued by Department was not conveyed to the assessee during the relevant period, hence the assessee could not respond before the both the Authorities.

7.

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

8.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the reasons recorded, it appears that the reasons have given the details which at this juncture is disputed by the assessee thereby stating that the assessee never entered into transaction amounting to Rs.3,30, 89,60,026/-. The Ld. AR also was challenging validity of the reopening

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 3 of 3 as well as after going through the order of CIT(A), it appears that the CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to the assessee to represent his case. Hence, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification of the issues on legal as well as on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing. It is directed to the assessee that the assessee will fully co-operate to the Revenue Authorities for filing the relevant details within the stipulated time and promptly appear at the relevant date of hearing notified by the Assessing Officer. If the assessee fails to do so, the Assessing Officer is at liberality to proceed as per Income Tax Statute.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 24th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →