Case Law Details
Girja Shankar Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow)
In the case of Girja Shankar Vs ITO before the ITAT Lucknow, the assessee appealed against the addition of ₹57.03 lakh to his income and a related penalty of ₹22.37 lakh. The Assessing Officer (AO) had determined these amounts based on cash deposits of ₹36.50 lakh and ₹20 lakh in the assessee’s bank account. This assessment was carried out ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond during the initial proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO’s decision, dismissing the assessee’s appeals for insufficient evidence regarding the source of the cash deposits.
Upon review, the ITAT found procedural lapses, noting that both the AO and CIT(A) had issued summary, non-speaking orders, which did not provide the assessee a fair opportunity to present his case. To rectify this, the ITAT quashed the earlier orders and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the AO to conduct a de novo assessment, ensuring reasonable opportunities for the assessee to be heard. The imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) will depend on the outcome of the reassessment. This judgment emphasizes the importance of due process in income tax proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
These two appeals have been filed by assessee for assessment year 2013-14 against impugned appellate orders, both dated 29/08/2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. For the sake of convenience these two appeals are decided through this consolidated order.
2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. An affidavit was also filed by the assessee in support of the request for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeals, the assessee has submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeals were really beyond his control and requested that the delay in filing these appeals may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay and admitting the appeals for hearing. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for decision on merits.
3. In this case assessment order dated 09/03/2016 u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed ex-parte qua the assessee wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.57,03,110/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.56,50,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had deposited Rs.36,50,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account in cash. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for concealment of income and imposed a penalty of Rs.22,37,910/-. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried both the issues i.e. addition of Rs.56,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.22,37,910/- in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee’s appeals against the aforesaid addition of Rs.56,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.22,37,910/- were dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate orders both dated 29/08/2028 by observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit of Rs.56,50,000/- and the penalty for concealment was imposed on the strength of the assessment order. The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders both dated 29/08/2028 passed by learned CIT(A).
(C) We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee and learned CIT(A) also passed the order in summary manner which in the facts and circumstances of the case is non speaking order. We feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play in the matter, the issues related to addition of Rs.56,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.22,37,910/- are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the orders of learned CIT(A) are set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The levy of the penalty will depend on the outcome of the fresh assessment order which will be passed by the Assessing Officer after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2025)
Author Bio
