MOHD. MOBIN,MAU vs. ITO, WARD - MAU, MAU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 50/VNS/2020Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 March 2022AY 2010-20114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and that some notices might not have been served in time. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance despite several notices. The assessee contended that notices were not properly served and the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without ensuring proper service of notices and affording an effective opportunity of hearing. Whether the CIT(A) decided the appeal on merits as required by law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT ‘SMC’ BENCH, VARANASI

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO

For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.03.2022Pronounced: 22.03.2022

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 9.12.2019 of CIT(A), Gorakhpur for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- BECAUSE; “1. the impugned order dated 9.12.2019 passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law as the same has been passed without giving due and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. the alleged notices mentioned in the appellate order had not been served upon the appellant accordingly the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 3. proceeding under section 147 of the Act is wholly erroneous as the appellant was not served with the reasons recorded for initiation of such proceedings after he had duly filed the return in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 4. the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer who had treated the entire deposits in the bank account of the appellant maintained with UBI, Mohammadabad Gohna as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act, though the same are business receipts and income derived from the business having been disclosed by the appellant stands accepted too. Mohd Mobin 5. there are receipts as well as withdrawals made by the appellant at regular intervals, authorities below have erred in law and on facts in adding / confirming the deposits made by the appellant at regular intervals out of business receipts as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 6. the order passed by the “CIT(A)” is violation of principles of natural justice. 7. the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law applicable thereto and principles of natural justice.”

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing despite the fact that notices were issued to the assessee. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that the assessment order was passed under section 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Ac, whereby the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee but none appeared before the CIT(A) and consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal proposes to hear and dispose of this appeal ex parte.

3.

I have heard the learned DR and carefully perused the impugned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for prosecution in para 4 to 6 as under:- “In appellate proceedings several opportunities were allowed to the appellant. Notices were issued to the appellant fixing the appeal for hearing as per provisions of section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961. There was no compliance on part of the appellant till date. The details of opportunities provided to the appellant in the case are tabulated as under:- Date of Notices issued Date of hearing fixed Remarks 03.06.2019 11.06.2019 None attended 28.06.2019 09.07.2019 None attended 29.07.2019 14.08.2019 None attended 18.09.2019 10.10.2019 None attended 14.11.2019 21.12.2019 None attended 02.12.2019 05.12.2019 None attended The aforesaid non-compliance on part of appellant reveals beyond doubt that the appellant has nothing to say in the matter of this appeal. It can be concluded that 2 Mohd Mobin appellant is not interest in prosecution of the present appeal and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum “VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENINUNT”. In view of the above mentioned facts and by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and decision of Hon'ble Order pronounced in the open Court after conclusion of hearing on 22.03.2022. [VIJAY PAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/03/2022 Varanasi Sh

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →