Haresh Thakorlal Mehta, Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bharuch, Bharuch

ITA 141/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2724 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत Ɋायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.141/SRT/2024 (AY 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Haresh Thakorlal Mehta 2647, Ayodhyanagar, Link Road, Bharuch-392001 [PAN : ALZPM 8628 C] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bharuch, ‘The Income Tax Office, Hari Kunj’, Station Road, Bharuch-3956069 अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ /Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by None राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 09.02.2024 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 25.04.2024 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of pronouncement 29.04.2024 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 12.12.2023 for assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 15.11.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld.CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT (Appeals) and may please be directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.54,63,885/- on account of unexplained credits including cash deposits ITA No.141/SRT/2024 (A.Y 12-13) Haresh T Mehta 2 in the appellant’s bank account u/s 69A of the Act. The impugned addition of Rs.54,63,885/- being bad in law and in fact is prayed to be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the LD. AO in making an addition of Rs.2,18,967/- being payment made to bank against credit card dues claiming the same to be unexplained as per Section 69A without considering the explanations of the appellant. The impugned addition of Rs.2,18,967/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in making and addition of Rs.473/- being interest credited to the bank account of the appellant. The addition of Rs.473/- being bad in law and as per the applicable facts is prayed to be deleted. 5. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter amend substitute or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal hereinabove contained.” 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice on more than two occasions. We find that on last date of hearing on 17 th April 2024, Shri Hemant Suthar CA, the learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) appeared on behalf of assessee and filed application for adjournment vide application dated 12.04.2024 and date of hearing was fixed for 25.04.2024. On 25.04.2024, neither the assessee nor his representative has to come to attend the hearing nor has filed application for adjournment. Therefore, we are left with no option except to decide matter on the basis of materials available on record and on hearing the submission of Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the revenue. 3. The Ld. Sr-DR submits that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.15,53,000/- in Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., during financial year 2011-12 and assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. The case of assessee was reopened under section 147 and notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2019 was served on the assessee. In response to notice under section 148 the assessee filed return of income on 07.05.2019 ITA No.141/SRT/2024 (A.Y 12-13) Haresh T Mehta 3 declaring income of Rs. 2,35,390/-. The reasons for reopening of assessment were supplied to assessee on 22.05.2019. During assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer served various notices on the assessee to substantiate the case deposits. The Assessing Officer noted that there were cash deposits of Rs.22,21,385/- and other credits of Rs. 32,42,500/-. The assessee failed to explain the source of such cash deposits and other credits. The Assessing Officer added aggregate of such deposits as well as interest accrued thereon. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee again failed to substantiate such deposits despite allowing more than sufficient opportunities. The ld SR DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions of the ld SR DR for the revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that the assessing officer made addition total addition of Rs.58,28,434/-, which included the cash deposits, other credits and the interest accrued on such deposits. The Assessing Officer made additions on taking view that the assessee failed to substantiate such cash and other credits. We further find that the ld CIT(A) upheld the additions in the ex-parte order by taking view that the assessee was allowed five opportunities to file his submissions, but the assessee fail to filed any submissions or any evidence to support his grounds of appeal. The ld CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of facts available on record. Before us, again the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed any written submissions or any documents to substantiate various grounds of appeal. We find that the lower authorities have made or ITA No.141/SRT/2024 (A.Y 12-13) Haresh T Mehta 4 upheld the additions for the want of proper submissions, therefore, in our considered opinion huge additions on account of unexplained source is made against the assessee for want of compliance. In our view, the assessee deserve one more opportunity to explain the facts and to substantiate the facts relating to cash and other credits in his account. Further, considering the facts that the assessment order is also passed for the want of proper explanation and evidence, the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer instead of NFAC/Ld.CIT(A). Needless to direct that the Assessing Officer shall pass order after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making compliance in time and not to seek further adjournment without any valid reason and furnish all relevant and necessary evidences if so desire. With these directions the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 th April, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) [लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBR] [Ɋाियक सद˟ JUDICIAL MEMBER] Surat, Dated: 29/04/2024 Dkp. Out Sourcing Sr.P.S Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. PCIT 4. DR 5. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Sr. P.S./Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat