Rajeshbhai Dhanjibhai Baraiya, Bhavnagar V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhavnagar

ITA 551/AHD/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rajeshbhai Dhanjibhai Baraiya against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention revolves around the additions made by the Assessing Officer under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including Section 115BBE read with Section 68, and Section 69C, concerning unexplained cash deposits and expenditures. The assessee argued that the additions were made without proper consideration of the details submitted and violated principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for admission of additional evidences and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129434 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 37; 271(1)(c); 144; 69C; 234B; 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA No.551/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.551/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rajeshbhai Dhanjibhai Baraiya, vs. Income Tax Officer, 409, Padadhar Bhamban, Ward – 2(1), Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar, Gujarat – 364 710. [PAN – BXKPB 5497 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Shah, AR Revenue by : Ms. Chitra Soneji, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 19.04.2023 Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. In law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) of NFAC was bad-in-law and deserves to be quashed. 1.1 In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) of NFAC has failed to appreciate the details that was submitted and neglected the false premise on which entire case was selected for scrutiny and thus upheld this unwarranted action of the Assessing Officer, the order is bad-in-law and deserves to be quashed, which is passed by violating the natural justice of the Appellant. 2. In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A), the addition upheld by the learned CIT(A) of NFAC of Rs.6,72,052 under Section 115BEE r.w.s 68 of the Act in connection to the cash deposit is void and bad-in-law and deserves to be deleted. 3. In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A), the addition upheld by the learned CIT(A) of NFAC of Rs.60,291 under Section 69C of the Act is void and bad-in-law and deserves to be deleted. ITA No.551/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 4 4. In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A), the addition upheld by the learned CIT(A) of NFAC of Rs.81,362 under Section 37 (as it seems since no section is specified) of the Act is void and bad-in-law and deserves to be deleted. 5. In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not specified under which section he is making impugned addition and has kept the Appellant in guess work that is evident that order has been passed in haste and in prejudice without giving proper show cause notice before passing the assessment order. Thus, the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is in violation of the natural justice and thus upholding such order by learned CIT(A) is another double whammy and thus it deserves to be quashed. 6. In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) of NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in initiating penalty initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the proceeding are wrongly initiated. He may be directed to withdraw such proceedings. 7. In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) of NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in initiating penalty initiated under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Since the proceeding are wrongly initiated. He may be directed to withdraw such proceedings. 8. In law and on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) of NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the impugned action of levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C and when no interest is chargeable it may be deleted.” 3. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 27.02.2017 belatedly declaring total income at Rs.2,53,270/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment for the reason that whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources or not. The reasons showed that the case was picked for scrutiny to verify the cash deposited after demonetisation period from 9 th November, 2016 to 30 th December, 2016. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and served upon the assessee but no compliance was made and, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 27.10.2017 but the same was not responded. The show cause notice for finalising the assessment under Section 144 of the Act was issued on 11.12.2017 for which the assessee submitted certain details on 18.12.2017 but the same was not considered and the Assessing Officer made addition under Section 115BBE read with Section 68 of the Act of Rs.6,72,052/- and also made disallowance ITA No.551/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 3 of 4 of expenses as unexplained expenditures under Section 69C in respect of expenditure on Plant & Machinery purchase for Rs.60,291/- 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 the assessment order is also passed at the fag-end and the assessee was not given opportunity of hearing during the assessment proceedings. The details filed were not taken into account. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) also has not taken cognisance of the same and decided the issues without discussing merits of the case and simply confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that no opportunity was given to the assessee by the CIT(A). 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. The Ld. AR submitted the affidavit of the assessee for admission of additional evidences which will substantially prove the assessee’s case and the assessee could not file the same before the Revenue Authorities as well as before the CIT(A) as the assessee was not able to attend the proceedings before the CIT(A) due to mistake on his part. It will be appropriate to admit the additional evidences and remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of these evidences and calling upon the remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), after proper adjudication and verification, the CIT(A) will decide the case on merit. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. . Order pronounced in the open Court on this 21 st day of April, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 21 st day of April, 2023 PBN/* ITA No.551/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 4 of 4 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