Case Law Details
Union Petrol Service Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that as assesse failed to appear before AO as well as before CIT(A) despite numerous opportunities, matter remanded back to CIT(A) subject to cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
Facts- AO had made assessment by invoking provisions u/s 144 of the Act as assessee failed to furnish the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 despite the receipt of the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. AO had given several opportunities to the assessee, wherein as many as five opportunities have been granted by AO. However, the assessee had failed to file any reply to the said notices. Under the said circumstances, AO had made an addition of Rs.7,56,98,381/-, to the income of the assessee, being the cash deposited during the demonetization period in the bank account.
CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Undoubtedly, it is clear from the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A), that the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A) despite numerous opportunities granted by the lower authorities. Before us, reason was given by the assessee for not participating in the proceedings before the lower authorities due to misunderstanding, as the assessee was opinion that the amount had already been taxed in the proprietor firm.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
