AMARLAL THAVARDAS PANJWANI,AMRAVATI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5, AMRAVATI

ITA 262/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amarlal Thavardas Panjwani, the appellant, who faced non-compliance issues during the assessment proceedings for the year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer initially dismissed the case due to non-compliance and made an addition of Rs. 89,64,612 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The first appellate authority also dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the case was dismissed without merit consideration and thus remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24237 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHORE P. DEWANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 271(1)(c); 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.262/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Amarlal Thavardas Panjwani Rampuri Camp, Lalla Line Amravati 444 602 PAN – NGPP8712E ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–5, Amravati ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 29/01/2025 Date of Order – 30/01/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The captioned appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 27/02/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. During the course of proceedings before us, we find that the assessee was non-compliant during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer dismissed the assessee’s case by observing as under:- “7. After issuing above mentioned notices assessee did not complied till date Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I. T. Act, are initiated. As per information the assessee has deposited Rs. 89,64,612/- with M/s Reunuka Mata Multi State Co-op. Credit Society during the F.Y. 2012-13 source of 2 Amarlal Thavardas Panjwani ITA no.262/Nag./2024 which has not been explained even after providing ample opportunities. As such I have no other option to make assessment as per provisions of section 144 of the I. T. Act. 8. Since assessee has not disclosed sources of money during F.Y. 2012-13 and did not submitted any explanation regarding source of this money. Therefore, it is evident that assessee has deposited the cash trough his un- explained sources of income to the tune of Rs. 89,64,612/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 89,64,612/- is made to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I. T. Act. Penalty Proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated. Total income is assessed as under- 3. On appeal, during the first appellate proceedings, due to assessee’s lackadaisical approach, the assessee did not respond to the multiple statutory notices issued the assessee and hence the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by issuing ex-parte order without dealing the issues on merit. 4. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri Kishore P. Dewani, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to enable the assessee to argue the matter on merits. He submitted that the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer due to situation beyond the control of the assessee. 2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee did not comply to the statutory notices issued by both the authorities below and failed to furnish relevant details. He strongly supported the order passed by the authorities below. 3. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though 3 Amarlal Thavardas Panjwani ITA no.262/Nag./2024 the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by the authorities below are ex-parte orders by dismissing the appeal without going onto the merits of the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate the case before the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2025 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 30/01/2025 4 Amarlal Thavardas Panjwani ITA no.262/Nag./2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "