Case Law Details
Rajendra Karbhari Bodake Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Introduction: In a recent case involving Rajendra Karbhari Bodake and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai, the tribunal has underscored the seriousness of income tax proceedings. When the assessee failed to appear for hearings or respond to notices, ITAT imposed a cost of Rs. 2000 to instill an understanding of the gravity of such matters. This article delves into the detailed analysis of the case and what it means for taxpayers.
Background of the Case: Rajendra Karbhari Bodake was aggrieved by a decision that confirmed the addition of Rs. 96.71 lakhs to his income, related to unexplained bank deposits. This addition was made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18.
Non-Cooperation from the Assessee: Interestingly, the assessee did not appear before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Various notices issued by the Assessing Officer went unanswered. As a result, the case was decided ex-parte, based on the information available.
Imposition of Cost: Given the lack of cooperation from Bodake, ITAT Mumbai imposed a cost of Rs. 2000. This amount is to be credited to the income tax department as ‘other fees’. The cost serves as a penalty designed to make the assessee realize the importance of tax proceedings.
Opportunity for Review: The bench at ITAT also decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present his case, subject to the payment of the imposed cost. This is significant, as it offers Bodake a chance for his case to be heard afresh, provided he cooperates with the authorities this time around.
Conclusion: The case of Rajendra Karbhari Bodake Vs ITO serves as a cautionary tale for those who might consider ignoring income tax proceedings. The imposition of a cost by ITAT Mumbai sends a clear message about the gravity and seriousness of tax matters. While the Tribunal has offered Bodake another opportunity to present his case, it has also reinforced that non-cooperation could be an expensive oversight. Therefore, it is crucial for all taxpayers to engage actively and responsibly in the legal processes related to income tax.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22.3.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 96.71 lakhs relating to unexplained bank deposits added by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the I.T. Act.
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we noticed that the assessee has not appeared before both Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the Bench decided to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.
3. We heard learned DR and perused the record. The facts of the issue consideration are that the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 86.33 lakhs in his bank account maintained with Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank during demonetarization period. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not filed any return of income as required under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18 and hence he issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for the return. The assessee did not file return of income and also did not respond to various notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgement under section 144 of the Act. He noticed that that aggregate amount of deposits made in his bank account of the assessee was Rs.96,71,527/- and the Assessing Officer assessed the same as income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act.
4. Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not make any submission and hence the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Before us also, the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any written submissions. We noticed earlier that the learned CIT(A) was constrained to pass an ex-parte order, since the assessee failed to cooperate with him. However, the natural justice would require that the assessee should be heard before deciding anything against him. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee was non-cooperative before both the tax authorities, the bench is of the view that the assessee should be imposed a cost in order to make his understand the seriousness of the income tax proceedings. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of the income tax department as ‘other fees’ within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. Subject to the payment of above said cost, which shall be verified by the learned CIT(A), we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to this file for examining them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. we also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.
7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in on 14.08.2023.
