Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar
Shri Vivekkumar S The ITO, Bhavsar Ward-5(2)(1), L-302, Kunal Heights Vs Ahmedabad Ramosana Cross Road, Near Darsan Hotel, (Respondent) Palanpur Road, Mehsana PAN: AXDPB2436R (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Suchit Patel, A.R. Revenue Represented: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 12-12-2023 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 09031.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Page No 2 Shri Vivekkumar Bhavsar. vs. ITO
The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee filed his Return of Income on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,05,970/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny since large cash deposits made during demonetization period and the Business return filed for the first time. Accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) was issued through e-mail address available with the ITBA system. However the assessee has not responded to the other six notices issued from 07.08.2018 to 27.08.2019. Therefore the cash deposits made in Dena Bank of Rs.2,11,95,770/- was treated as the unexplained investment and added to the income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon.
Aggrieved against the exparte order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with communication e-mail address as cahardiksomani@gamil.com being assessee’s Chartered Accountant e-mail ID. The assessee appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.02.2021, 23.01.2021, 02.12.2021 and 10.12.2021. However the assessee neither filed any details nor sought for adjournment, against the above hearing notices. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee appeal.
Aggrieved against the same, the Assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1. The learned commissioner (Appeal) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,11,95,770/- being cash deposit in Bank as un explained Investment u/s. 69A of Income Tax Act.
2. The learned commissioner (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity.
Page No 3 Shri Vivekkumar Bhavsar. vs. ITO
3. The learned commissioner (Appeal) erred in not giving any finding on addition made by A.O as unaccounted cash and taxed u/s. 69 and 69A of Income Tax Act being unexplained Investments.
4. Your appellant prays for appropriate relief on above grounds of appeal
5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesse had carried out sale of mobile recharge vouchers on a wholesale basis and earned commission income. The assessee purchased recharge vouchers from M/s. Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. and he made payments to the said concerns through NEFT/RTGS from his Dena Bank account. The assessee deposited the sale proceeds of mobile recharge vouchers in the above Dena Bank account and made payments to the mobile companies. The assessee could not produce the details being Covid-19 pandemic period and also closed down the business activity before completion of assessment, which has resulted in passing the exparte order. Further the Ld. Chartered Accountant also not informed the appellate hearing details to the assessee. The assessee also produced a Notarized Affidavit from the then Chartered Accountant that due to his mistake, the appellate hearing could not be communicated to the assessee, which has resulted in passing the exparte appellate order. However the Ld. Counsel submitted that he has got all the details about the sale of recharge vouchers, ledger account of M/s. Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. and M/s. Telenor India Communication Pvt. Ltd. with invoice copies, bank statement details, cash book, bank book, etc and filed two sets of Paper Book running to 491 pages. Thus pleaded the case may be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for passing orders on merits.
Page No 4 Shri Vivekkumar Bhavsar. vs. ITO
Per contra Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Lower Authorities and requested to uphold the same.
We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee was not cooperative with the department both while passing the assessment order and appellate order for various reasons stated above. There seems to be absolute negligence on the part of the assessee and his Consultant. However there cannot be entire addition of cash deposit made in the bank account of the assessee as his income. In order to meet the ends of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a condition to impose a cost of Rs.5000/- payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. On production of the payment receipt, the Assessing Officer is directed to hear the assessee with necessary documents and pass fresh assessment order by giving proper opportunity to the assessee and in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.