SH.BALJEET SINGH PROP. M/S. DREAM' CAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (1), JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 150/ASR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 October 2022AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO applied the presumptive tax rate under Section 44AD incorrectly as the assessee's turnover was not eligible. It also noted that the assessee was unable to explain demonetisation deposits and was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited cash during demonetisation and had total cash deposits and credit entries significantly higher than the declared turnover. The AO calculated net profit at a presumptive rate and added it to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly applied the presumptive tax provisions and whether the assessee was afforded a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Hearing: 28.09.2022Pronounced: 12.10.2022

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),NFAC, Delhi, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal No.DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043059517(1), date of order 18.05.2022, the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2017-18.The impugned order was emanated from the 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 order of the ld. Income Tax Officer,Ward 3(1), Jalandhar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144of the Act date of order 22.12.2019.

2.

The brief fact of the case is that the assessee deposited cash during demonetisation in SBN (Old Currency) amount to Rs. 7,02,500/- and the total cash deposited in the bank 1,26,60,500/- and credit entries 1,41,97,081/-. The assessee declared the turnover Rs.75,35,000/- which was at the net profit rate Rs.8.16. The total turnover was calculated by the ld. AO amount of Rs.2,61,55,081/- (Rs.2,68,57,581 - Rs.7,02,500/-). So, the balance turnover calculated under profit @ 8.16 which was already declared by the assessee in his return. The balance, net profit was added back amount of Rs.15,19,400/- with the total income of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the same in ex parte and upheld the order of the ld. AO.

3.

Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

During the appeal hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is taken up with the consent of the ld. Sr. DR.

5.

Both the lower authorities had passed the order in ex-parte against the assessee. The ld. AO calculated the net profit @ 8.16% which is applicable u/s 44AD of the Act under presumptive rate of tax. But the assessee’s turnover is not under purview for calculation of net profit u/s 44AD of the Act. Related to deposit 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 of cash in demonetisation the assessee was unable to explain the matter before both the authorities. Reasonable opportunity of hearing was denied. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the first appellate authority after giving an opportunity for a personal hearing, in terms of rule 12 of the Faceless Appeals Rules 2021, for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order.

Ordered, accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal bearing isallowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2022

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →