Bhavanibhai Keshavlal Maheshwari, Anand V. The ITO, Ward-2, Now Ward-1, Anand

ITA 363/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Bhavanibhai Keshavlal Maheshwari Mayasheri, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The appellant's case was flagged due to significant cash transactions following the demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 notes in November 2016. The AO made additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 42,00,546, due to unaccounted cash deposits and credit entries in the appellant's bank accounts. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision without a detailed examination of the merits, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299930 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 2; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . N o . 3 6 3/ A h d /2 0 2 3 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 17- 18 ) B h a va ni bh ai K es ha vla l Ma h e s h w a r i Ma ya sh e r i , Sa rs a , An an d- 3 88 36 5 V s . IT O War d- 2 , A n a nd (N o w I T O - Wa r d - 1 , An an d ) [ P A N N o. BG WP S 6 91 8 L ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Darshan B. Gandhi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ashesh R Rewar, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 11.07.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 14.07.2023 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 15.03.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case by agreeing with the Ld. AO’s order in passing order u/s 144 of the act. Therefore, assessment order passed by AO as well as Appellate Order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law by confirming addition u/s 69A of the act in assessment order passed by AO. Addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 3. The notice issued to appellant against the transactions recorded in bank accounts of partnership firm “Keshav Traders”, is bad-in-law. Therefore, assessment order passed by AO as well as Appellate Order passed by CIT(A0 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. The appellant prays to submit additional evidences in connection with additions / disallowances made by AO as fresh evidence as per Rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules. 5. As the order is passed u/s 144 (ex-parte) appellant prays to set aside the matter to jurisdictional AO in the interest of natural justice. ITA No. 363/Ahd/2023 Bhavanibhai Keshavlal Maheshwari vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 2 - 6. Your appellant craves liberty to add, to alter, to modify, to amend or to withdraw / delete any of the grounds of appeal at any time, on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The Government of India on 08.11.2016 on demonetized the old currency of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- and allowed all the holder of the demonetized currency to be deposited in their bank accounts from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The assessee’s case was identified in “Cash Transactions, 2016” as Category Priority – 1 by Income Tax Business Application – Online Portal. The assessee did not file return of income for A.Y. 2017-18, therefore, notice under Section 142(1) was issued on 10.03.2018 and was duly served. The assessee had not complied to the said notice and despite the reminders the same remained unanswered. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 42,00,546/- in respect of cash deposits and credit entries in bank accounts under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has not granted any opportunity of hearing to the assessee and has passed ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the case on merit. 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 363/Ahd/2023 Bhavanibhai Keshavlal Maheshwari vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 3 - 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) without giving proper / sufficient opportunity to the assessee for submitting the reply and evidences as well as giving the opportunity of hearing. Therefore, in the interest of justice it will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the case on merit in respect of the issues contested by the assessee before the CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principle of natural justice. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 14/07/2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 14/07/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad