MANOJ KHOSLA, AJIT ROAD, BATHINDA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

ITA 287/ASR/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0220 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.287/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Khosla M/s Balaji Enterprises, Ajit Road, Old Bank of Baroda, Street, Bathinda. [PAN:AGQPK0998R] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward 1,(1), Bathinda. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 ORDER Per: Udayan Das Gupta, JM This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC, order dated 19/03/2024, passed u/s 250 of the Act 61, which has arisen out of the order of the AO, ITO Ward-1(2), Bathinda. 2. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are as follows: “1. That the CIT(A) NFAC, vide ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Act Dt. 19.03.2024, has erred on facts & law in confirming the action of the AO of assessing the income of the I.T.A. No.287/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 assessee at Rs. 58,59,522/- vide Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act Dt. 27.12.2019 as against the loss declaring in the return at Rs. 2,04,478/-without providing proper opportunity of hearing. 2. That the CIT(A) NFAC, vide ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Act Dt. 19.03.2024, has erred on facts & law in confirming the action of the AO of assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 58,59,522/- vide Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act Dt. 27.12.2019 as against the loss declaring in the return at Rs. 2,04,478/- as the notices of hearing has been served on the e-mail id’s of CA [e-mail], [e-mail] through whom the appeal has been filed but the CA did not inform the assessee regarding the service of notices u/s 250 of the Act and the assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause for non-compliance of the notices u/s 250 of' the Act. 3. That the CIT(A) NFAC, vide ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Act Dt. 19.03.2024, has erred on facts & law in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,64,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 51,50,000/- in Syndicate Bank and Rs. 9,14,000/- in Yes Bank during the period of demonetization. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of.” I.T.A. No.287/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual carrying on business in PVC pipes and tube-wells. During the F.Y. 2016-17, the assessee deposited an amount of Rs.60,64,000/- in bank during the demonetization period. In course of assessment proceedings the explanation filed by the assessee, regarding cash deposit was not found to be satisfactory and as such, an amount of Rs.60,64,000/- was added back to the total income (in fact assessee returned loss of Rs.2,04,478/-) and the final assessed income was determined at Rs.58,59,522/-. 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority, where it is seen that no representation or submission has been made by the assessee before the first appellate authority, in response to notice issued on five different dates of hearing. In absence of any submissions or representation from the assessee the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing that the AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order, and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case no interference with the order of the ld. AO is called for. 5. Now the matter is before the tribunal where the assessee has challenged the said order on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. In course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee argued that notice from the office of the CIT(A) has been served through E-mail on the counsel’s of the assessee namely [e-mail]. The counsel has sought adjournment on the first two I.T.A. No.287/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 notices, but for later notices, they did not inform the assessee and neither they made a request for date. 5.1 He further submitted that it was specifically stated in serial no. 17 of form 35 that notice should be issued to the E-mail ID of the assessee [e-mail] but in this case, notice of hearing has not been issued to the said email ID and as such, the assessee was not aware of the dates of hearing because the earlier counsel did not intimate or forward the copy of the said notice to the assessee and due to non-compliance of the earlier counsel during the course of appellate proceedings, the case has been decided ex parte by the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that the litigant should not suffer on the account of the mistake of the counsel and he relied on the judgment of coordinate bench in the case of Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.169/Asr/2015 dated 22.10.2019 [Third member] and in the case of Fujitsu Consulting India P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2019] 110 taxmann.com 177. 7. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and argued that when an appeal has already been filed before the first appellate authority, it was incumbent on the part of the assessee to be more vigilant and to keep contract of appeal proceedings, and he prayed for sustaining the appeal order. 8. We have heard the rival submission and considered the material on record and we find that in form 35 specifically E-mail ID has been stated where notice of I.T.A. No.287/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5 hearing should have been issued, but instead, the notice has been issued to the E- mail ID of the earlier counsel resulting in non-appearance and non-representation of the assessee. 8.1 We also find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order and he has not decided the ground of appeal contained in form 35 on merits of the case. 8.2 As such, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order after duly examining and considering all the grounds of appeal on merits of the case. Needless to say the assessee should get a reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard by issue of notice in the E-mail ID as specified in form 35. The assessee is also directed to file all submissions and documentary evidences in course of appellate proceedings, in support of his grounds of appeal on merits and fully co-operate in appeal proceedings. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 287/Asr/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: I.T.A. No.287/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6 (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order