M/S GENERAL FRUIT TRADERS,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/ASR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 May 2023AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remitted the appeal back to the AO for further adjudication. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity for hearing in the set-aside proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition made by the AO. The addition was based on cash deposits during demonetisation, with the AO calculating net profit on the deposited amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Whether the addition made on account of cash deposits during demonetisation was justified without proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

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

Hearing: 22.05.2023Pronounced: 26.05.2023

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’], order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y.

2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jammu[in brevity ‘AO’] order passed u/s 144 of the Act.

2.

The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 79 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition. The concern advocate was occupied for the illness of his wife. The medical report was duly annexed and petition an affidavit. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 79 days is condoned.

3.

The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the order under appeal is against the law and facts of the case.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has not been justified in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law in not deciding the appeal of the appellant on merits. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also made the violation of principle of natural justice while

deciding the appeal of the appellant as only two opportunities have been given to the appellant. It is the law of the land that reasonable opportunities have to be given for deciding the appeal case.

5. It is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow the appellant to amend or file additional/alternate grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4.

Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was assessed u/s 144 of the Act.

The addition was made on basis of depositing cash during demonetisation amount of Rs.14,94,600/- and the ld. AO calculated net profit on the deposited cash amount of Rs.1,49,07,546/- @ 8% which is computed to Rs.11,92,603/- u/s 28 of the Act. Both amount of Rs.11,92,603/- and Rs.14,94,600/- works out total amount to Rs.26,87,203/- which was added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) considered the said amount as unexplained source and passed the ex parte order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

5.

The ld. AR vehemently argued and placed that the assessee was denied for the reasonable opportunity before any of the authorities. During assessment proceeding, the entire Kashmir Valley was locked up due to insurgency and strike on the year 2019. So, the assessee was unable to represent the matter before the assessing authority. The ld. AR further represented that during appeal proceeding the assessee’s consultant was fully busy for his wife illness. So, the assessee was not got proper opportunity to submit the documents.

6.

The ld. DR argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities.

7.

We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. The assessment was completed on basis of the deposit of cash in the bank account during pre and post demonetisation. The assessee is a fruit trader, as perld.

AR the entire cash was generated from the business of the assessee. The assessee was unable to submit the evidence before any of the authorities during appeal proceeding. The ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the ground of the assessee. After hearing both the parties and considering the issue involved, we set aside the order of the ld. AO. The appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. AO for further adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity for hearing in set aside proceeding.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →