RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA,BAREILLY vs. I.T.O. 2(3), BAREILLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 109/LKW/2023Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 April 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The assessee was cautioned to comply fully in the set-aside proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,61,096/- under Section 68. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority and whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma
Hearing: 11/03/2024

Appellant by Shri A.P. Sinha, Advocate Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT( DR) Date of hearing 11/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 29/ 04/2024 O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual. The assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,06,570/-. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) was issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) and subsequently the AO passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and made addition of Rs.5,61,096/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, in spite of various opportunities, as enumerated in the appellate order, there was no proper compliance to the various notices issued by NFAC and resultantly, the assessee’s appeal came to be dismissed by the ld. First Appellate Authority.

4.

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

“1. The ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred while not giving adequate opportunity. 2. The ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred while confirming the addition of Rs.5,61,096/- 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred while not considering that the cash deposit was out of cash withdrawal earlier.”

5.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer (AO).

6.

The ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the AO.

7.

I have heard Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that there was complete non compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of first appellate proceedings. However, 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 AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and I 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.

8.

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

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →