Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 29.05.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under: -
1. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC ought not to have passed the appellate order exparte and dispose the appeal without hearing the assessee.
2. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer by treating the amount of Rs. 1,02,02,367/- deposited with the Central Bank of India, Station Road, Rudauli Branch (A/c No. 3129716132) as undisclosed income of the assessee.
3. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer by treating the amount of Rs.1,02,02,367/- deposited with the Central Bank of India, Station Road, Rudauli Branch, A/c No 3129716132 in the name of ‘PRACHARYA SRI RAM CHANDRA SING MAHAVIDYALAYA, LOHATI SARAIYA, RUDAULI’ as that pertaining to the assessee whereas the said bank account pertains to a society and not the assessee.
4. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by the learned assessing officer by treating Page 2 of 5 Rs.17,02,600/- deposited with the Punjab National Bank of the assessee as undisclosed income of the assessee.
5. Because, in any case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in not taking cognizance of the expenditure ought to have been allowed against the alleged total turnover deposited in the bank account in Punjab National Bank. That this account has been considered in the return of income filed by the assessee.
6. Because, in any case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in not taking Cognizance that the total income of Rs.4,90,880/- and agriculture income of Rs.4,50,000 /- were already shown in the return of income and therefore ought to have been reduced from the assessed income.
7. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have directed the learned assessing officer hot to charge interest under section 234A amounting to Rs.82,050/- and interest under Section 234B amounting to Rs.2,98,649/-.
8. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC has passed the appellate order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and without considering the facts, the applicable law and without application of mind.
9. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC did not allow the assessee sufficient opportunity to make compliance of the reasons relied upon for confirming disallowances and additions made by the learned assessing officer.
Because the order appealed against is contrary to the fact, law and principles of natural justice.
Any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing.”
At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being disposed of on the basis of the material available on record.
The factual matrix in the present appeal, the assessee filed his return of income through electronic mode on 10.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,90,880/- and agricultural income at Rs.4,50,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. In response to the notices issued one Shri Ram Shankar Gupta, Advocate, attended and filed ‘Vakalatnama’. Thereafter, there was change of incumbent, and the Assessing Officer (“AO”) who took over change also issued notices but there was no compliance by the assessee. It is noted by the AO that as per the AIR/CIB information, and on perusal of the saving bank account maintained with Central Bank of India, Page 3 of 5 it was found that total turnover was of Rs.1,02,02,367/- further the bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank, there was turnover of Rs.17,02,600/-. Thus, as per AO, the gross turnover was of Rs.1,19,04,967/-. The Assessing Officer treated this as undisclosed income of the assessee and made the impugned addition. Thus, he assessed income at Rs.1,23,95,843/-. Aggrieved, the assessee appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who also passed exparte order against the assessee. Thereby, he dismissed the appeal of assessee and sustained the additions. Aggrieved against this, the assessee has filed the present appeal.
Apropos to the grounds of appeal, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the assessee was provided multiple opportunity but he failed to avail the same. He submitted that in the absence of any supporting evidences. The authorities below are justified in making the impugned additions.
We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. He has simply dismissed the appeal without adverting to the grounds raised by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: -
“3.1 I have perused the assessment order and other relevant records. The assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the undersigned. 3.2 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was granted many opportunities for presenting his case and filing detailed submission in support of various grounds of appeal taken by him. However, on none of the occasions, the appellant chose to file a submission or filed any documents, evidences or even requested for adjournment. It may be noted that in the faceless appeal environment, all the notices are issued to the appellant at the email address provided by him, and also, all the submission are supposed to be filed online through the appeal module available to the appellant online in his e-filing portal. In this electronic communication environment, the emails/notices/letters are routed through the NFAC, and the appellant is expected to respond through the same environment. 3.3 Having noted thus, it is a fact that the appellant chose not to submit anything in response to various notices issued to him thereby giving him ample opportunity of hearing, which is also in accordance to principle of natural justice. The table below list the various dates of issuing of notices, dates of hearing/submission granted to the appellant and the response of the appellant: SI. No Date of fixing/notice Date of hearing Reasons offered by appellant 1 10.02.2021 25.02.2021 No compliance 2 21.03.2022 05.04.2022 No compliance No compliance 3 19.10.2023 03.11.2023 No compliance 4 15.11.2023 30.11.2023 No compliance 5 28.03.2024 12.04.2024 3.4 It is very clear form the above table that the appellant has chosen not to submit anything in support of his various grounds of appeal. In such a scenario, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant does not have anything to say or have anything to offer to the appellate authority in support of his various grounds of appeal, and thus, that the appellant does not want to press any of the grounds of appeal. In light of this, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO as enumerated in the assessment order. 3.5 I, therefore, dismiss all the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.”
From the above, it is clear that there is no decision on the grounds raised by the assessee. It is well settled that the First Appellate Authority is under legal obligation to decide the grounds raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not made any effort to decide the grounds of appeal on merit. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the grounds raised by the assessee. Hence, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 29.05.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) and we restore the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This appeal is disposed off in accordance with aforesaid direction.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/11/2024.