Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal
आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, arises from order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12-05-2022, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
Page No 2 Shri Rampal Singh vs. ITO
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 1 l,78,500/- on account of unexplained cash credit | u/s68ofthe I.T. Act.
2 That, the Ld CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 11,000/- claimed under chapter VIA of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 27l(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
That, the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad- in-law.
6. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals.
Total tax effect (see note below) 5,20,551/-
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of transportation services. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 5,50,800/-. During the course of Page No 3 Shri Rampal Singh vs. ITO assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash credit amounting to Rs. 11,78,500/- and further disallowed deduction claimed under chapter VIA of the Act amounting to Rs. 63,638/-.
The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). In appellate proceeding, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,78,500/-. However, with respect to disallowance under chapter VIA, the ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the extent of Rs. 52,638/-.
5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A). Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that though, he was able to file written submissions, but owing to online system of physical representation, the assessee could not get an opportunity to personally explain its case to the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) passed order upholding the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer owing to mis-appreciation of the correct set of facts. The counsel for the assessee submitted that if given an opportunity, the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) so as to enable assessee to give complete details of cash deposits made in the account of the assessee. The counsel for the assessee submitted that he has a good case on merit and if given an opportunity, he is in a position to fully explain the source of deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. In response, the ld. Departmental Representative opposed restoration of matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) and placed reliance in the case of Ashokji Chandu Thakor Vs. PCIT 130 taxman.com 131 (SC).
Page No 4 Shri Rampal Singh vs. ITO
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in the case of Ashokji Chandu Thakor supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP filed by the assessee against order of High Court holding that where assessee group engaged in sale and purchase of land was issued notice u/s. 153A but on failure of filing any reply despite several opportunities, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the additions, order passed by Tribunal setting aside order of Commissioner (Appeals) without giving any cogent reason was arbitrary and unreasonable. However, the facts of the assessee’s case are distinguishable from the aforesaid decision for the following grounds:-
(i) In the instant case, the assessee did file written submissions before ld. CIT(A), however, could not cause appearance owing to the online system of representation and therefore could not argue his case on merits through the virtual mode and secondly, in the instant case, the assessee has not prayed for setting aside of the order of ld. CIT(A), but has requested that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present the facts of this case in detail before ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice. Accordingly, in our considered view, since decision of Ashokji Chandu Thakor supra was rendered on a different set of facts, the same is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is being set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the facts of its case on merits and produce any supporting evidence in support of the case. Further, the assessee is also directed to ensure that all notices with respect to virtual hearing of the case may be complied with promptly and diligently.
Page No 5 Shri Rampal Singh vs. ITO According, the matter is being restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the aforesaid directions.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28-06-2023