Azimullah Razamiya Shaikh, Ahmednagar V. The Income Tax officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

ITA 723/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Azimullah Razamiya Shaikh, who appealed against the order of the NFAC concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant had not filed a regular return of income, and following information from the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Nashik, regarding his investment in a cooperative society, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued. The Assessing Officer added Rs.6,00,000 as unexplained cash investment to the appellant's income under section 69 of the Act. The NFAC rejected the appellant's additional evidence due to the absence of a formal application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found this approach by the NFAC to be overly technical and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment considering the additional evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137652 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.723/PUN/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azimullah Razamiya Shaikh, 182, Hanuman Mandir Parisar, Dhotre Kopargaon, Ahmednagar- 413708. PAN : CZJPS4958R Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 30.05.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular Return of Income was filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer on receipt of the information from the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Nashik that the appellant was a member of co-operative society, namely, Niyojit United Co-operative Housing Assessee by : Shri M. N. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri A. K. Mahala Date of hearing : 03.08.2023 Date of pronouncement : 07.08.2023 ITA No.723/PUN/2023 2 Society which, in turn, purchased a property for a consideration of Rs.3,45,00,000/-, in which the appellant had invested a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 30.03.2020. In response to the notice u/s 148, the appellant neither filed the return of income nor responded to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte vide order dated 26.09.2021 treating source of investments of Rs.6,00,000/- in cash as unexplained and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the NFAC contending that the investments of Rs.6,00,000/- was made out of share of the agricultural income from HUF. The appellant also filed supporting documents in respect of the agricultural land holdings and agricultural income etc. The NFAC rejected the additional evidence filed before him in the absence of any formal application for admission of such additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. ITA No.723/PUN/2023 3 5. The ld. AR taking me through the additional evidence filed before the NFAC at page nos.13 to 25 of the Paper Book, submits that the approach adopted by the NFAC is hyper technical and the NFAC ought not to have rejected additional evidence. 6. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits that he has no objection, if the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- as the appellant had failed to offer any explanation as to the source of the investments of sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in cooperative society, namely, Niyojit United Co-operative Housing Society. However, during the course of proceedings before the NFAC, the appellant attempted to produce the documents in respect of land holdings and agricultural income in support of the source of investments of Rs.6,00,000/-, the NFAC adopting the hyper technical approach rejected the additional evidence in the absence of any formal application under Rule 46A of the Rules. Thus, in my considered opinion, the approach adopted by the NFAC is highly unreasonable and hyper technical. Therefore, the order of the NFAC is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in the light of ITA No.723/PUN/2023 4 additional evidence filed before the NFAC. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 07 th day of August, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 07 th August, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.