BHUPINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 88/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI A.D. JAIN (Vice President), DR KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that notice was served only on the Income Tax Portal, which was not seen, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed without the assessee seeing the portal notice is bad in law and against natural justice, and if cash deposits were from legitimate sources.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI A.D. JAIN & DR KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA राजव क ओर से/
For Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.08.2024Pronounced: 05.08.2024

आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

1.

The appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 29.11.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

2.

Grounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are as under: -

88-Chd-2023 – Bhupinder Singh, Mohali 2 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by passing the ex-parte order without considering the facts of the case which is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice.

2. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law by treating the cash deposits of Rs. 51,04,215/- as unexplained money under section 69A, whereas the same was from legitimate sources.

3.

At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the notice of hearing was issued on the Income Tax Portal which was not seen by the Assessee. He has brought on record the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs CIT(E) Chandigarh’, CWP No. 21028/2023 dated 4.3.2024 and requested that as the service of notice was solely on portal which could not be seen by the Assessee, therefore, as per the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the above mentioned case, the Assessee may be presumed to have no knowledge of the proceedings and he further requested for sending this case back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

4.

The ld. DR has no objection as the request of the Assessee’s Counsel was based on the judgement of the jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra).

88-Chd-2023 – Bhupinder Singh, Mohali 3

5.

We have considered the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order and the submissions filed by the ld. counsel of the Assessee. We have also considered the arguments put before us by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee. Accordingly, in view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05. 08.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →