Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.09.2023, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm derives income from business of Lubricants on wholesale basis. The assessee did not file its return of income for assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer received information that as per (Individual Transaction Statement) ITS data, the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.23,30,800/- in its Bank account No.750530110000195 maintained with Bank of India, Rudauli, Faizabad during the demonetization period. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee was having taxable income but had not filed its return of income and therefore, he issued notices under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) requiring the assessee to file its return of income. Since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made assessment based on best judgment under section 144 of the Act and added Rs.23,30,800/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money. The AO also, based on the VAT returns obtained from the Commercial Tax Department, estimated the turnover of the assessee during the financial year 2016-17 at Rs.6,59,62,252/- and net profit @8% on the same, amounting to Rs.52,76,980/- was also added to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before 3. the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice.
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.23,03,800/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of Income-tax Act.
4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of estimated profit of Rs.52,76,980/- u/s 44AD of Income-tax Act at 8% of Rs.6,59,62,252/- against actual NP ratio of the industry.
5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order which is contrary to the facts and law.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer (AO).
The ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO).
We have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative as well as the ld. AR and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case and we also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO shall 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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/09/2024.