Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 23-11- 2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1.1 The order passed by U/s. 250 passed on 23.11.2023 for AY 2012-13 by NFAC (CIT(A) Delhi (for short "NFAC") disposing of the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance to the notices and upholding the additions aggregating to Rs.19,07,483/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
Page No. Rajankumar Vikrambhai Patel vs. ITO
1.2 The ld. NFAC has erred in passing the impugned order on merits of the impugned addition because the powers of CIT(A) are limited to disposing of the appeal on merits. Moreover in absence of notice issued u/s 143(2) within time the entire assessment was illegal.
2.1 The ld. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there could not be compliance to the notices claimed to be issued by it mainly because the appellant was unaware about the same on account of shifting permanently to US since long. Thus, there was a sufficient cause for failure to comply with the notices claimed to be issued by NFAC.
3.1 The ld. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,02,900/- towards cash deposit in Axis Bank account during the year as unexplained income u/s. 69A.
3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the ld. NFAC ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 16,02,900/- towards cash deposit in Axis Bank account during the year as unexplained income u/s.69A.
4.1 The ld. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.3,04,583/- as unexplained purchase price of the property, though the appellant had explained that he had paid only Rs. 1,05,000/- and there was no equal share therein but his father was the owner of this flat.
4.2 The ld. NFAC has erred in adopting the purchase price at Rs. 9,13,750/ by making reverse calculation though the provision of sec 56(2)(vii) was in operation at the relevant time.
It is, therefore, prayed that the additions upheld by the NFAC.CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.”
The assessee was a salaried person having salary income from Anupum Industries Ltd. during the year under consideration. The income tax return was duly filed for the year under consideration u/s. 139 declaring total income of Rs. 1,73,794/- on 13-06-2012. As per the AIR information,
Page No. Rajankumar Vikrambhai Patel vs. ITO the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 16,02,900/- in his saving bank account held with Axis Bank Ltd. After recording reasons for reopening and filing proper approval, the case was reopened and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 27-03-2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee has not filed return of income but responded through e-portal on 26- 06-2018 stating that the assessee shifted to USA and needs time to collect the documents. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) on 14-09-2018 but the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer therefore made addition of Rs. 16,02,900/- as cash deposits in saving bank account and also the addition of Rs. 3,04,583/- towards purchase of immoveable property where the assessee has paid amount of 1/3 share in the property.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. A.R. submitted that as the assessee was not in India, the assessee could not compile the documents related to the relevant assessment year within the stipulated period given by the Assessing Officer as well as due to mis- communication, the assessee could not be able to co-ordinate
Page No. Rajankumar Vikrambhai Patel vs. ITO with the assessee’s tax consultant and filed the relevant documents before the ld. CIT(A) as well. The ld. A.R. prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit after giving opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee’s casual approach of not pursuing the matter once tit has been filed before the CIT(A) is not justifiable. Therefore, the cost of Rs. 1000/- is imposed upon the assessee to be paid/deposited to Prime Minister Relief Fun within the period of four weeks from the date of order. Since the issues contested by the assessee was not at all decided on merit, it will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues after taking cognizance of the evidences filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) will decide the matter as per the income tax statute. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Further, it is hereby directed to the assessee to fully co-operate the hearing before
Page No. Rajankumar Vikrambhai Patel vs. ITO the CIT(A) and file the relevant documents before the CIT(A) within the reasonable period and represent the case properly before the authorities whenever the hearing date is fixed by the CIT(A). If the assessee fails to co-operate before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) is at liberty to take appropriate decision as per due process of law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.