SANDEEP KHERA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 2(3), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 752/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 November 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to decide afresh, granting the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case. This was because the impugned order was passed ex-parte and lacked findings on the merits.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee purchased shares for Rs. 16,00,000/-. The AO issued a notice under section 148 and made an addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as income from unexplained sources due to lack of explanation from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained share purchase was justified, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

Hearing: 08/10/2024Pronounced: 21/11/2024

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH �ी िव�म �सह यादव, लेखा सद�य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sandeep Khera बनाम The ITO 41-Kckitchlu Nagar Ward-2(3), Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141001, Punjab �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AKDPK5223C अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent िनधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : None राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/10/2024 उदघोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 06/10/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein the sole ground relates to sustenance of addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- under section 69/ 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

In this regard, briefly the facts of the case are that the AO was in receipt of the information that the assessee has purchased 800 shares of M/s P.L. Khera Yarns Pvt. Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 200/- per share and paid a consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to impugned Assessment Year. Thereafter, the reasons were recorded and notice under section 148 were issued to the assessee on 30/03/2018. Thereafter after issue of show cause under section 144 and in absence of any explanation submitted by the assessee explaining the nature and the source of purchase of shares, the AO went ahead and made the addition to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- as income from unexplained sources.

3.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said addition by passing an ex-parte order and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed and considering the fact of the case, it was decided that no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter any further.

5.

Heard the ld DR and purused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where the impugned order has been passed ex-parte qua the assessee and there is no finding on the merits of the case, I believe that the assessee deserve one more opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, I hereby set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →