Case Law Details
Nirmala Dass Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
In the case of Nirmala Dass vs. ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) addressed an appeal concerning the addition of ₹42.26 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained cash deposits during the financial year 2011-12. The reassessment was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessee contended that the reassessment order and the subsequent addition were made without proper jurisdiction and that the cash deposits had legitimate sources. The assessee also claimed that the lack of compliance was due to non-receipt of notices from the Revenue authorities.
The ITAT reviewed the case and observed that both the AO and CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte due to the alleged non-response from the assessee. Considering the plea of non-receipt of notices, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to remand the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to reassess the case after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case. This decision ensures adherence to the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was sent back for a detailed review.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.01.2024, relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:-
1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s. 144/147 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s. 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,26,000/- as unexplained by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,26,000/- as unexplained when the deposit in bank account is out of genuine sources.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not reversing the action of AO in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
2. In this case, AO passed an exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act by making the addition of Rs. 42,26,000/- being cash deposits in bank which remained unexplained.
3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition.
4. Against the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, assessee is in appeal before me.
5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I note that both the lower authorities viz. AO as well as CIT(A) noted that assessee has not responded to the notices. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the notices from the revenue authorities did not reach the assessee, which lead to the noncompliance, hence, he prayed that assessee may be given an opportunity before the AO to properly canvass the case. Ld. DR did not object the aforesaid proposition.
5.1 After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, I am of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly.
6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 14/11/2024.
Author Bio
