Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Addition of Rs.19 Lakh ‘unexplained money’ with Golgappa Vendor was remanded back

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2024 taxguru.in 6300
Case Name
Sunny Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2017-18
Advertisement

Sunny Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)

Conclusion: Addition of Rs.19,07,000 as unexplained money for an individual who ran a small golgappa stall was remanded back for providing an opportunity of personal hearing as both the assessment order under Section 144 as well as first appellate order under Section 250(6) were not meritorious in nature.

Held: Assessee-individual ran a small golgappa stall. During the assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18, assessee deposited Rs.19,07,000 in his bank accounts. He  was served with notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but abstained from responding to the same effectively. As a consequence, AO concluded assessment under Section 144, and passed order under Section 69A making addition of Rs.19,07,000 as unexplained money. Aggrieved by the order, AO preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Taxes ( CIT(A) ), who sustained the original Assessment Order. Assessee had appealed before the Tribunal contending that no hearing was afforded and ex-parte order was passed by CIT(A). It was held that both the assessment order under Section 144 as well as first appellate order under Section 250(6) were not meritorious in nature. The income computation during a year must be on real time basis after rival contentions of both the parties were analyzed which unfortunately had not happened. Assessee was also expected to be vigilante in so far as assessment proceedings were concerned. Most of the time assessee went in slow motion and avoid proceedings by not responding to notice(s) of Department, not appearing before AO, not following up with CA/Advocates. Department official who discharged quasi judicial function of adjudication and adjudgment were time bound too. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside on grounds of natural justice and the case was remanded back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to him to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of a personal hearing before the case was finally decided. CIT(A) was required to pass a well reasoned order on merits of the case.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.