ITO Vs Piyush Tushar Paralikar (ITAT Nagpur)
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC dated 03.06.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal arose from an assessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s decision on several grounds, including the admission of additional evidence, deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,30,000, deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,20,47,620, admission of an additional ground relating to the validity of notice under Section 148, and reliance on the Bombay High Court decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT.
The assessee had not filed a return of income for AY 2018-19. Based on information available on the ITBA portal, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed transactions amounting to Rs. 9,91,00,025 during the relevant year. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued, but no return or reply was initially furnished.
During reassessment proceedings, information was obtained from ICICI Bank Ltd. and Samco Securities Ltd. The AO found that the assessee had deposited Rs. 64,45,620 in ICICI Bank and Rs. 56,02,000 in Yavatmal Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. It was also found that a payment of Rs. 6,30,000 had been made to Samco Securities Ltd. Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee subsequently filed a return declaring income of Rs. 9,160, but the return was treated as invalid because it was filed ten months after the due date. The AO completed the reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 and determined total income at Rs. 1,26,86,780.
