Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI
ASSESSEE BY : Shri Akshit Goel, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.09.2023 Date of Order : 18.09.2023
ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.
CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 20.02.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/ s 250 of the Act is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the Ex-parte order. The CIT(A) has not followed the Rules of natural justice.
3. That the assessee filed an adjournment application on 25.01.2023 on the E-proceeding portal seeking adjournment until 09.02.2023 and wanted further adjournment for submissions, however, the E-proceeding portal did not accept the assessee's request; meanwhile, Ex-parte was passed by the ld. CIT(A) without allowing the assessee to be heard.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal Ex-parte without deciding the appeal on merits as laid down in CIT v. S. Chennaiappa Mudaliar (1969) SC (591) and Balaji Steel Re- rolling Mills v. Commissioner Excise & Customs (2014) 52 taxmann.com 107 (SC) case.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/ s 68 of the Act without appreciating that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,12,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the Appellant has already accounted for income represented by cash deposited in the bank and therefore, same cannot be considered as undisclosed income in terms of Section 68 of the Act.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT has erred both in facts and in law in charging the tax under section 115BBE of the Act as provisions of section 68 are not applicable, therefore, provisions of section 115BBE could not be invoked.”
In this case, Assessing Officer made addition under cash credit for the cash deposit during demonetization period amounting to Rs.1,12,00,000/-. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition. ./2023 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that ld. CIT (A) has given a notice dated 18.01.2023 for compliance on 25.01.2023. The assessee had given adjournment petition which was ignored. Hence, assessee’s counsel pleaded that the matter may be restored to the AO to enable the assessee to canvass the case properly along with certain additional evidences which have now come into the possession of the assessee. 6. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection to the above proposition. 7. Upon careful consideration, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue de novo after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 18th day of September, 2023.