Naeemakhtar Faniband Vs ITO (ITAT Panaji)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Panaji addressed an appeal filed by Naeemakhtar Faniband against an order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The dispute arose from additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 69A, 56(2)(vii)(b), and 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained property purchases and bank deposits. The AO had proceeded under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, as the assessee failed to file an income return and did not respond to subsequent notices. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s additions, rejecting the assesses appeal and additional evidence due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and Rule 46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
The ITAT, however, recognized the importance of natural justice and decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. Despite the assesses procedural lapses, both at the assessment and appellate levels, the ITAT acknowledged that there could be valid reasons for the non-compliance. To ensure fairness, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This decision was made contingent upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Income Tax Department within one month and providing proof of payment. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with adequate hearing opportunities and to adjudicate the case on its merits, ensuring the assesses cooperation in submitting the required information and evidence. The ITAT allowed the assesses appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.
