Shri Mahendrabhai Rajparbhai Koradiya, Bhavnagar V. The ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhavnagar

ITA 220/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Mahendrabhai Rajparbhai Koradiya, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the CIT(A) regarding the reopening of his assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues included the ex-parte nature of the orders, the legality of the reopening of the assessment, and the addition of Rs. 11,13,640 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not received any notice or communication regarding the orders, leading to a decision to remand the case for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129311 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit
• Section: 147; 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA No.220/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.220/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mahendrabhai Rajparbhai Koradiya, Building No.11, Shetrunjay Park Society, Palitana, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – 364 270. [PAN – AURPK 2816 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Bhavnagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR Da te o f He a r in g 05.09.2023 Da te o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 13.09.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 11.11,2022 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order, ex-parte. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of re-opening is without jurisdiction and is not permissible either in law or on facts. 3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.11,13,640/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount. ITA No.220/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s.234A/B/C/D. 6. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.” 3. The assessee is an individual and not filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessment was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.11,13, 640/- as unexplained income. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal as the assessee was not aware about the communication of the notice/order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, he could not file appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time limit. The reason given by the assessee appears to be genuine and, therefore, the delay is condoned. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and in fact the assessee being not literate could not be able to access the notices as well as the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after taking cognizance of the evidences. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not received any notice and there is no record of service mentioned in the Assessment Order as well as in the order of CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues. The assessee be given opportunity for filing the details/evidences before the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given proper opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. ITA No.220/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 3 of 3 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13 th September, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 13 th September, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad