Case Law Details
Maheshkumar Kuberdas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
In the case of Maheshkumar Kuberdas Patel vs. ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reviewed an appeal where the assessee contested the addition of ₹10.95 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained cash deposits in a bank account during FY 2016-17. The assessee claimed that the addition was unlawful and should be reversed, highlighting that the notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] were not properly communicated due to issues with the consultant’s failure to respond. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition in an ex-parte order because the assessee did not comply with the notices, and the appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT, upon hearing the case, acknowledged the error and accepted that the consultant’s inadvertent failure to respond to the notices led to the dismissal. The assessee, who is employed and also earns income from agricultural operations, argued that they should be given an opportunity to be heard. The Departmental Representative (DR) agreed with this proposal, and the ITAT found no prejudice to the Revenue if the matter was reconsidered. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, directing the authority to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and adjudicate the appeal de novo. The case was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being sent back for a fresh review.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)” for short), dated 15.05.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
“1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 15.05.2024 by NFAC[CIT(A)], Delhi (for short “CIT(A)”) upholding the addition of Rs.10,95,050/- made by A.O towards cash deposit made in Dena Bank account during FY 2016-17 as unexplained income u/s 68 rws 115BBE is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
2.1 The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there could not be compliance to the notices claimed to be issued because the same were issued at the email id of the accountant who had not informed or given copy of the notices in order to make due compliance. Thus, there was a sufficient cause for failure to comply with the notices claimed to be issued by CIT(A).
3.1 The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.10,95,050/- made by A.Ο. towards cash deposit made in Dena Bank account during FY 2016-17 as unexplained income u/s 68 rws 115BBE.
3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 10,95,050/- made by A.O towards cash deposit made in Dena Bank account during FY 2016-17 as unexplained income u/s 68 rws 115BBE.
3.3 The Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that when the HUF of the appellant was separately assessed to tax and filing ITR which was the main source of impugned cash deposits, no addition could be made in the hands of the appellant as an individual.
3.4 Without prejudice to above and in the alternative the impugned addition of Rs. 10,95,050/- is highly excessive and calls for substantial reduction..”
3. In this case, the assessment order has been passed by the ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad on 15.12.2019 determining total income of Rs.16,45,030/- against the returned income of Rs.5,49,980/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account. The ld. CIT(A) has issued notices fixed for hearing on 13.01.2021, 06.04.2021, 02.01.2024, 06.01.2024 and 09.05.2024 on email given in Form No.35 which have been duly delivered. The ld. CIT(A) has passed an order ex-parte owing to noncompliance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).
4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Before us, it was submitted that the consultant, who has been in receipt of the notices, has not responded inadvertently to the said notices, which led to dismissal of the appeal and prayed that the assessee is a small employee and earned income from agricultural operations also, and pleaded to have an opportunity of being heard before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR fairly accepted the proposal. We find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the ld. CIT(A), with directions to adjudicate the appeal de novo, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 29.11.2024
Author Bio
