Suresh Parshotambhai Vadhadiya (HUF), Morbi V. The ITO Ward-4, Morbi, Morbi

ITA 301/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5848 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c); 250; 274; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 301/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Suresh Parshotambhai Vadhadiya (HUF), Suresh Parshotambhai Vadh Radha Park Sanala Road, Kanya Chhatralay Road Morbi, Rajkot Vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AATHS6208M (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Assessee by : None राजèवकȧओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. P.S. स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, is directed against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short ‘NFAC’, Delhi), dated 28.06.2023, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:- “The undermentioned grounds are without prejudice to each other. I.T.A No. 301/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Suresh Parshotambhai Vadhadiya (HUF) 2 1. The learned CIT Appeals has erred in dismissing the appeal summarily on the ground of lack of prosecution which is bad on facts and bad in law and against law of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT Appeal has passed order exparte without adjudicating on merits and by way of speaking order on the grounds and issues raised before him which is bad on facts and also in law and it ought to be set aside to learned CIT Appeal. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds The learned CIT Appeal has thus erred in confirming the total addition of Rs.15,25,000/- as made by Learned A.O which is bad on facts and also in law which ought to be set aside. 4. The petitioner crave to add, alter, vary, withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The appellant is a Hindu Undivided Family. The case of the appellant was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the ground that appellant deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 15,25,000/- in bank account maintained with the Punjab National Bank during the year FY 2010-11 and that the appellant did not file any return of income for the year under appeal. The ld. A.O. issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs 1,030/- being interest from saving bank account. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the appellant submitted a copy of bank book indicating the cash deposition and payments/withdrawals made therefrom. In view of the above facts, it becomes crystal clear that the assessee has neither known source of income nor any genuine explanation regarding the sources of cash deposits made in bank account worth Rs. 15,25,000/, As such, the same is added back to the total income of assessee as unexplained money u/s. 694 of the Act. As the assessee has concealed income to the extent of Rs. 15,25,000/- in aggregate, the A.O. was satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty I.T.A No. 301/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Suresh Parshotambhai Vadhadiya (HUF) 3 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceeding u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are hereby initiated for concealment of income. Similarly, the penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act are also initiated for non compliance to the statutory notices issued. Subject to above remarks, the total income of the assessee is determined as under:- Income returned Rs. 1030/- Addition: 1. Unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act Rs. 15,25,000/- Total Addition/Disallowance Rs. 15,25,000/- Income Assessed Rs. 15,26,030/- Rounded Off Rs. 15,26,030/- 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)and ld. CIT(A) disposed off the appeal with the following observations:- “5.11 In view of the facts and legal position discussed above, it is presumed that appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and not having any documents, explanation and evidence in support of grounds of appeal raised and thus has not discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions/ addition made by the AO It is seen that no written submission filed till date. In view of the lack of prosecution by the appellant, I proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of facts and material available on record. 6. The appellant has failed to furnish any material evidences or documents or even the written submission either with its Appeal or during the appellate proceedings. In view of the discussions in the preceding paras, the clear position of law and respectfully relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts as above I do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on this count. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” I.T.A No. 301/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Suresh Parshotambhai Vadhadiya (HUF) 4 5. On behalf of the assessee, none appeared, no intimation/no written submission was filed during the course of hearing. On the other side, ld. D.R. appeared on behalf of the Revenue. The ld. D.R. submitted that five opportunities have been provided to the assessee but the assessee has not complied with, neither appeared nor written submission was filed before the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has issued five notices for hearing. But the order is silent on the service of the assessee. Beside this, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte with a view that appellant is not interested in perusing the appeal as opportunity has already been provided to the appellant. Hence, the appeal is to be disposed of as materials available on record. Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We further direct to the assessee to submit relevant documents/details/evidences. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10-07-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 301/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Suresh Parshotambhai Vadhadiya (HUF) 5 Rajkot Dated: 10/07/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Rajkot