HEMANTKUMAR RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD V. .THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1876/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah, the appellant, contesting an order from the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed a significant addition of Rs. 76,07,650 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal without proper consideration of the submitted documents and grounds. The ITAT noted procedural lapses in the handling of the appeal by the CIT(A), including the failure to provide adequate opportunities for the appellant to present his case and the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without substantive examination of the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25559 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATEEK SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI SODHAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 69A; 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1876/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah, 402, Archan Residency, Opp. Orchid Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AOQPS5805K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant in absence of primary response to the appeal notices. 2. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming huge addition of Rs. 76,07,650/- made by AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts dismissing the appeal without considering copy of ledger as well trading account of the broker submitted with bank account stating loss of Rs. 32.63 lacs suffered by the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in not prosecuting the appeal and refraining from discussion and decision on the grounds of appeal against the provisions of law and principles of Natural Justice. 5. Levy of interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act is unjustified. ITA No. 1876/Ahd/2024 Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 2– 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings without specifying the section under which penalty is leviable is unjustified.” 3. We observe that there is a delay of 21 days in filing of the present appeal. The Counsel for the assessee submitted an Affidavit stating that he approached his Chartered Accountant, Shri Mehul Chalishajar for filing of appeal before ITAT, but due to his ill health and hospitalization the assessee’s Chartered Accountant was not in a position to approach the office of Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate for preparation of appeal. The assessee has submitted discharge certificate of the hospital of his Chartered Accountant, for the purposes of our records. 4. In light of the above, we are hereby condoning the delay of 21 days in filing of the present appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, addition on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act was made on the ground that the assessee has taken unaccounted accommodation entries by undertaking transactions in shares of M/s. Stampede Capital Ltd. 6. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance and non-submissions of documents. 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without dealing with any of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before him. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) issued three notices of hearing dated 25.06.2024, 11.07.2024 and 23.07.2024 i.e. all notices were issued within a gap of one month and thereafter, summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without dealing with any of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. ITA No. 1876/Ahd/2024 Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 3– This is despite the fact that the assesse had submitted substantial details before the Assessing Officer running into almost 100 pages, which were completely omitted to be considered by Ld. CIT(A) at the time of passing of the order. Accordingly, it was requested that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. On going through the contents of the order, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.2 Further, the appellant has failed to submit any substantial evidence to overturn the decision made by the AO in the impugned order. Therefore, it has been construed that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In the instant case, I am refraining from discussion and decision on the Grounds of appeal on merits. The Grounds of appeal are dismissed herewith for non- prosecution.” 9. Accordingly, looking into the contents of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), wherein, he has specifically refused to deal with any of the grounds raised by the assessee and also the fact that all notices of hearing were issued to the assessee within a period of one month only, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/12/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/12/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY ITA No. 1876/Ahd/2024 Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 4– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 26.12.2024 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 26.12.2024 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 26.12.2024 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 27.12.2024 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 27.12.2024 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 27.12.2024 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "