Case Law Details
Trupti Ashishkumar Desai Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
In the case of Trupti Ashishkumar Desai Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Surat reviewed an appeal concerning the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The appellant challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld an addition of ₹7,00,130 under Section 69A, based on unexplained investments. The appellant argued that the order was passed ex parte, without adequate opportunity for defense, as the CIT(A) claimed multiple notices were issued, including during the COVID-19 period. The appellant’s representative acknowledged missed compliance opportunities but expressed confidence in the merits of the case, stating the funds were sourced from legitimate term deposits. Conversely, the Department’s representative insisted that ample opportunities were provided and that the appellant’s non-compliance justified the decisions made by the lower authorities. The ITAT considered the principles of natural justice and decided to restore the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, allowing the appellant another chance to present their arguments and evidence. The tribunal emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to ensure fair hearing while also urging the appellant to comply timely in future proceedings. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the expectation of renewed consideration by the Assessing Officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT (A)-5, Mumbai [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 06/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.
2. JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,00,130/- u/s 69 of the Act.
3. JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in reopening of assessment without observing any escapement on part of appellant.
4. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified.
5. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and ”
2. Rival submission of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the finding of Assessing Officer by taking view that several opportunities were given to the assessee and that the assessee is not complied various notices issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that as per para-4.1 of ld CIT(A). the assessee was issued one notice in 2019 and two notice in Covid period and only last notice was issued in 2024. The ld AR of the assessee submits that the assessee missed his opportunity in making compliance to such notice. The Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide it afresh on merit after giving opportunity to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in complying the notices issued by the lower authorities. The assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is allowed to the assessee to contest the case on merit. On merit, the ld AR of the assessee submits that the deposits/ credit in the bank was from explained sources, which was credited on account of term deposits.
3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee was given ample opportunity by the lower authorities, it is the assessee who has not availed such opportunity, therefore, even on merit, the assessee is not eligible for any relief.
4. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused material available on record. I find that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69A of Rs. 7,00,130/- on account of term The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 144 as well as 147 of the Act. The action of Assessing Officer was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in ex parte proceedings. Now before me the ld AR for the assessee undertook to be more vigilant in attending the hearing and in making timely compliance. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the substantial right of assessee is involved in the present appeal, therefore, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the assessee is giving one more opportunity to explain the case on merit, therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reason and to furnish all the details and his submissions and evidences on various grounds of appeal raised by it, as soon as possible, if so desired without any further delay. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order announced in open court on 01st October, 2024.
Author Bio
