Bhumi Sales Corporation, Valsad V. ITO Ward-(1), Valsad, Valsad

ITA 144/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2829 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH K. KABRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JIDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.144/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhumi Sales Corporation Plot No.10, Atak Pardi, Dharampur Char Rasta, Abrama, Valsad-396001 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Valsad, Room # 207, 2 nd Floor, Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPFB 1755 Q (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Suresh K Kabra, CA िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 09.02.2024 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing 17.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) dated 26.12.2023. Assessment was framed by Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) vide his order u/s 144 of the Act dated 27.09.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The ground raised by the appellant is as under: - 2 ITA No.144/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Bhumi Sales Corporation “1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.57,98,200/- made u/s 69A of the Act. 2.1 The addition may kindly be deleted. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit maybe granted. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee did not file its return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on data analysis and information gathered from verification of cash deposits during demonetization period, it was found that the assessee had deposited substantial cash but it did not file return of income for AY 2017-18. Therefore, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) four times between 09.03.2018 to 30.08.2019. There was no response to the notices and subsequent show-cause notice issued on 18.09.2019. Hence, cash deposited of Rs.15,00,000/- and other credit entries in bank account of Rs.42,98,199/-, totaling to Rs.57,98,199/- was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) issued four notices of hearing but the there was no compliance on the part of assessee. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the appellant failed to make out any reasonable and cogent ground for not deciding the appeal ex parte despite adequate opportunities of hearing. Hence, the findings of AO 3 ITA No.144/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Bhumi Sales Corporation was upheld and appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the appellant has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Suresh K Kabra, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, argued that impugned order passed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel stated that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted adjournment application. However, NFAC/Ld.CIT(A), did not consider the adjournment application and without giving further opportunities of being heard to assessee, the order u/s 250 of the Act was passed ex parte, which is against the principles of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer. 4. On the other hand, Learned Senior-DR for the Revenue does not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered the facts of the case. We note that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order on merits and has dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance. It is, however, seen that the assessee had requested for an adjournment. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead its case before the Assessing Officer. It is settled law that the principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to present its case. 4 ITA No.144/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Bhumi Sales Corporation Accordingly, we set aside the order of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. We also direct the assessee to provide relevant documents and details before the Assessing Officer, as and when required by him and assessee shall co- operate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for disposal of its case. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 24/04/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स ू रत/Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 24/04/2024 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat