Case Law Details
Pankajkumar N. Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
In the case of Pankajkumar N. Patel vs. ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad addressed an appeal challenging the reopening of assessment and subsequent additions made under Sections 69A and 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012–13. The assessee contested the validity of reopening the assessment, arguing it was based on speculative inquiries without evidence of income escapement. The appeal also disputed additions of ₹7,02,667 and ₹18,08,774 as unexplained investments under Section 69A, penalties initiated under Section 271(1)(c), and interest charges under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
The tribunal noted the assessee’s explanation that compliance with prior notices was hindered by personal and health challenges. It ruled that no significant prejudice would result if the assessee were granted another opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration, allowing the assessee to make the necessary submissions. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing procedural fairness and the opportunity for reassessment.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CITA] , National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in proceeding u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 11/01/2024 passed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:-
1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.
2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts reopening in of assessment u/s 148 of the Act ignoring fact that there is no escapement of income and case has been reopened for making fishing and roving inquiries.
3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of unexplained investment of Rs.702667/- u/s69A of the Act.
4, Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1808774/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A ignoring fact that section does not have applicability.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings 271(1) (c) of the Act. u/s
6. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C are unjustified.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the year under consideration by declaring total income of Rs.2,46,200/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) ongoing to non-compliance of the notice issued to the assessee. The addition has been made on account of bank loan on proprietor’s capital account on an agricultural income.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available onrecord. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that due confirmations could not be filed owing to reasons beyond assessee’s control and ill-health of family members of the assessee. The assessee pleaded that given an opportunity, due to compliance would be made before the AO, where the primary default has occurred. Thus, keeping in view, we hold that no prejudice is caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to make his submissions before the AO. Hence, the matter is remanded to the AO to consider the submissions made by the assessee.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 22nd November, 2024 at Ahmedabad.
Author Bio
