Archana Pathak Shrivastava Vs ITO (ITAT Jabalpur)
Summary: The assessee, an individual working as a teacher in a government school, had not filed her return of income for AY 2018-19. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on information that she had received salary income of ₹39,06,000/-. Following non-compliance with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144 and assessed total income at ₹39,06,000/-. Although TDS was reflected in Form No. 26AS, no TDS credit was allowed. The CIT(A) sustained the addition. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the material/information relied upon for making the addition had not been confronted to her, that she was not given an effective and meaningful opportunity to explain the material, and that TDS credit reflected in Form No. 26AS had not been granted. The Jabalpur ITAT observed that the appellate order did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the evidence relied upon by the assessee was examined and dealt with in a reasoned manner. Holding that an assessment could not be sustained merely on an adverse inference without reasonable opportunity to explain the facts and circumstances relied upon, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. The AO was directed to verify the TDS and give credit thereof in accordance with law after providing the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard, with liberty to the assessee to furnish documentary evidence, explanations and other material in support of her claim. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee, a government-school teacher, did not file her return for AY 2018-19. Based on information that she had received salary income of ₹39.06 lakh, the AO reopened the assessment under Section 147.
Following non-compliance with statutory notices, the AO completed an ex parte assessment under Section 144, assessing the entire ₹39.06 lakh as income. Although the salary and corresponding TDS appeared in Form 26AS, no TDS credit was granted because the assessee had not filed her return. The CIT(A) sustained the addition.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the material forming the basis of the addition was never confronted to her, no effective opportunity of hearing was given, and the consequential demand was wrongly computed without allowing the TDS credit appearing in Form 26AS.
The Jabalpur ITAT observed that:
