Kiran Kantilal Chokshi, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

ITA 699/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0797 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORTHEASSESSEEBROUGHTTOOURNOTICETOTHE; FORTHEREVENUEHASNOSERIESOBJECTION
• Keywords: Bogus

Judgement Text

xplanation INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“B”BENCH Before:Smt.AnnapurnaGupta,AccountantMember AndShriT.RSenthilKumar,JudicialMember KiranKantilalChokshi, 1,KarodaiPole, Nr.OldVegitableMarket, Vadodara-390001. PAN:ABDPC8025D (Appellant) Vs TheI.T.O, Ward-3(1)(4) Vadodara. (Respondent) AssesseeRepresented:MsUrvashiShodhan,AR RevenueRepresented:ShriHrishikeshHemantPatki,CIT-DR Dateofhearing:15-07-2024 Dateofpronouncement:24-07-2024 आदेश/ORDER PERT.R.SENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER Thisappealisfiledbytheassesseeasagainsttheexparte appellateorderdated14.02.2024passedbythetheNational FacelessAppealCentre(NFAC),Delhiarisingoutoftheassessment orderpassedundersection143(3)oftheIncome-TaxAct,1961 [hereinafterreferredtoas"theAct"]relatingtotheAssessmentYear (AY)2017-18. 2.Thebrieffactsofthecaseisthattheassesseeisanindividual andengagedinthebusinessoftradingofGoldBullion/Silver/old goldornaments.TheassesseefileditsReturnofIncomefortheAsst. Year2017-18on31.10.2017,declaringtotalincomeof Rs.11,29,100/-.Thecasewasselectedforscrutinyassessmentand variousnoticeswereissuedonthecashdepositsofRs.2.9croreson ITANo:699/Ahd/2024 AssessmentYear:2017-18 ITANo.699/Ahd/2024 KiranKChokshivs.ITO Asst.Year2017-18 PageNo.2 SpecifiedBankNotecurrencyinBankofIndiaandUCOBank duringthedemonetizationperiod.Theassesseewasaskedtoexplain thesourceofcashdeposit.Afterconsideringtheexplanation,the AssessingOfficertreatedthecashdepositsasbogusandtherefore addedtotheincomeoftheassesseeu/s.68andalsotaxedthesame undersection115BBEoftheActanddemandtaxthereon. 3.Aggrievedagainstthesame,theassesseefieldanappealbefore theNFACandsoughtforadjournmentson02.09.2022,11.11.2022 and05.09.2023.However,theLd.CIT(A)foundthattheassessee failedtofilethewrittensubmissioninsupportofhisGroundsof Appealandalsoheldthatassessehasnotrespondedtothehearing noticestherebydismissedtheappealfornon-prosecutionand withoutadjudicatingthecaseonmerits. 4.Aggrievedagainsttheappellateordertheassesseeisinappeal beforeusraisingthefollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.TheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)erredinnot issuinganynoticeafter09.05.2023forwhichanadjournmentwas soughtbytheappellant. 2.TheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)erredinnot givingproperopportunitytotheappellanttorepresenthiscase. 3.TheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)erredin confirmingtheadditionofRs.2,90,00,000/-u/s68oftheAct. 4.TheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)erredin dismissingtheappealbasedonvariousdecisionsfornonattendance referredintheappellateorderdespitethefactthatnonoticewas issuedafter09.05.2023forwhichanadjournmentwassoughtbythe Counseloftheappellant. 5.Theappellantcravestherighttoaddtooralter,amend,substitute, deleteormodifyalloranyoftheabovegroundsofappeal. ITANo.699/Ahd/2024 KiranKChokshivs.ITO Asst.Year2017-18 PageNo.3 5.TheLd.Counselfortheassesseebroughttoournoticetothe adjournmentrequestmadebytheasesseefromtimetotime.Though thefinalrequestwasmadeon09.05.2023,theLd.CIT(A)without givinganyopportunityoffurtherhearingpassedthisex-parteorder afteraperiodof8monthsandalsoobservingthattheassesseehas notavailedtheopportunitywithoutconsideringtheadjournment requestmadebytheassessee.Thus,theLd.Counselpleadedthat onemoreopportunitybegiventotheassessee,tosubstantiateits casewithnecessaryevidencesbeforetheappellateauthorityinthe interestofPrincipleofNaturalJustice. 6.TheLd.DRappearingfortheRevenuehasnoseriesobjection andstatedthatassesseeshouldmakeuseofthisfinalopportunity byproducingallthenecessarydetailsbeforetheappellateauthority. 7.Wehaveheardtherivalargumentsandperusedthematerials availableonrecord.Asagainsteveryhearingnotices,theassessee sentadjournmentrequesttoNFAC.However,thesamewasnot consideredbytheNFACandpassedex-parteappellateorder. Section250(6)oftheActprovidesthattheLd.CIT(A)shalldisposeof theappealonmeritsandspeltoutthereasonforsuchdecision.But hereinthiscase,theLd.NFAChasnotdiscussedonmerits,but simplyreproducedthefactsandgroundsofappealanddismissed theappealfornon-prosecution,whichinourconsideredopinionis notcorrectinlaw.Thus,weset-asideex-parteappellateorder passedbytheNFACwithadirectiontogiveproperopportunityof hearingtotheassesseeandthenpassorderonmerits.Needlessto saytheassesseeshouldmakeuseofthisfinalopportunitybyfiling allnecessarydetailsandevidencesfiledbeforetheNFACtopassthe orderonmerits. ITANo.699/Ahd/2024 KiranKChokshivs.ITO Asst.Year2017-18 PageNo.4 8.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowedforthe statisticalpurposes. Orderpronouncedintheopencourton24/07/2024 Sd/-Sd/- (ANNAPURNAGUPTA)(T.R.SENTHILKUMAR) ACCOUNTANTMEMBERJUDICIALMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated24/07/2024 Manish