ABHAY SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 321/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of substantial justice, restored the appeal to the NFAC for a fresh hearing on merits. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income. The AO reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 31,30,000/- under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetization, as the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified, and whether the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abhay Singh v. DCIT/ACIT-3 10-A, Literacy House Lucknow Kanpur Road Lucknow TAN/PAN:ANKPS4767R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.03.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration. As per information received from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Lucknow, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had deposited cash totalling to Rs.31,30,000/- in his Bank Accounts No.28100400002333 and 28100600003960 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Cantt. Road Banch, Lucknow during the demonetization period. The AO accordingly reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to the said notice. The AO, thereafter, issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. However, the assessee again did not respond to the said notice also. Since there was no response from the side of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the AO, he proceeded to assess the income of the assessee under section 144 read with section 147 and 144B of the Act. The AO, thereafter, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,30,000/- by making addition of Rs.31,30,000/- under section 69A of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.

4.

Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1.

Because the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to law of facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of JAO while issuing the notice u/s 148 without jurisdiction and without proper service of notice. 3 Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of JAO while issuing the notice u/s 148 considering assessee has not filed the return Ignoring the fact that return was already filed vide acknowledgement no. 258118581261017 dated 26th October, 2017 at total income of Rs.2470290/-. 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming and the Assessing Officer in making total addition of Rs.31,30,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, without considering the peculiar facts of the case and providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The addition of Rs.31,30,000 is therefore liable to be deleted.

5.

None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.

6.

Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC.

7.

I have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that the order passed by the NFAC is an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the NFAC with the direction to hear the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →