SHRI KISHORCHANDRA MOHANLAL KHAMBHAYATA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (1) , RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 135/RJT/2021Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 January 2023AY 2008-09Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the online submissions and case laws filed by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for not furnishing written submissions. The assessee claimed to have filed submissions online prior to the order. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions, and whether the addition under Section 68 was validly made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, AR
For Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.01.2023Pronounced: 18.01.2023

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in passing the appellate order u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 dated 08.10.2021 by contending that the appellant has not furnished any written submission and consequently the appeal was liable to be dismissed, which is factually incorrect as the appellant had already furnished detailed written submission on the income tax web portal on 08.09.2021 (one month prior to the passing of the appellate order) vide acknowledgement number 469123251080921.

2. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act and ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the validity of the same without referring the submission of the appellant and even the material available on records.

3.

Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in passing the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act which was passed without considering all the material available on records and Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the action of ld. AO.

4. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs.17,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of the cash deposited in saying bank account and ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same without referring the submission, bank pass book, cash withdrawals, material available on records and statutory provision of section 68 of the Act. All the grounds of appeal raised hereinabove are without prejudice to one another.”

3. The assessee is an individual and was engaged in the business of manufacturing of hardware items. The assessee filed return of income on 25.06.2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,45,930/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2015. The assessee vide letter dated 03.11.2015 requested the Assessing Officer o treat the return filed only as return filed in response to 148 notice. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made a unexplained cash credit in his savings account maintained with State Bank of Saurashtra amounting to Rs.17,00,000/- and the assessee neither filed any submission nor attended the hearing to explain the cash credit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.17,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not taken cognisance of the online submissions made by the assessee on 08.09.2021 as well as the documents filed before the CIT(A) including the decision of various High Courts, Supreme Court as well as Tribunal. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee should have been given opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. AR during the hearing submitted the details of e-proceedings response acknowledgement wherein an online submission of the assessee was uploaded along with the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts, Supreme Court as well as Tribunal. All these submissions and the case laws were not at all considered by the CIT(A). Thus, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back the issue contested by the assessee before the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the same as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 18th day of January, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →