SHRI MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL SOFI, BUDGAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SRINAGAR

ITA 74/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mohammad Maqbool Sofi, the appellant, contesting the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which was confirmed by the CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The primary grievances included insufficient opportunity for the assessee to present his case, and arbitrary additions to his income under sections 44AD and 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (A) had decided the case ex parte without adequately considering the appellant's explanations or evidence, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114453 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAT COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 74/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Maqbool Sofi Kremshora, Budgam, Jammu & Kashmir,191111 [PAN: DCQPS 7111K] (Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srinagar (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone, CA Respondent by Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.01.2023 in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18 where the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No. 74/Asr/2023 Mohammad Maqbool Sofi v. ITO 2 “1. The Assessment order is bad in law, as assessee has not been granted sufficient opportunity. 2. The Assessment order is bad in law, that against the actual income of Rs. 2, 37,216.00, the CIT (A) has confirmed the income of assess at Rs. 12,72,780.00 3. The CIT (A) erred in both facts & laws, by making addition o! Rs. 1,94,780.00 u/s 44AD, by treating an amount of Rs 24,34,670.00, as sales from business, when no bank credits made during the year pertains to the business. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in both facts and laws by making addition of Rs. 10, 78,000.00 u/s 69A of the Act in an arbitrary manner. 5. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or add or withdraw any ground before the appeal is disposed of.” 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the assessment order was bad in law as the assessee has not been granted sufficient opportunity of being heard and the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed, confirming the addition of Rs.10,78,000/-u/s 69A of the Act, in arbitrary manner. He pleaded that the assessee may be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after considering its documentary evidences. 3. The Ld. DR stands by the impugned order, however, he has no objection in remanding the matter to CIT(A) in view of natural justice. I.T.A. No. 74/Asr/2023 Mohammad Maqbool Sofi v. ITO 3 4. Heard rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order and written submission by the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant never came forward with his explanation to the grounds mentioned by the appellant despite being offered ample of opportunities through hearing notices issued by his office. The onus lies on the appellant to prove his case before seeking relief in the appellate proceedings. On this front, appellant has failed miserably. In these circumstances, it is deemed fit not to interfere with the assessment u/s 144 made by the AO. Accordingly, the addition of Rs 10,78,000/- made by the AO is upheld. 5. Thus, admittedly, the revenue authorities passed orders ex parte qua the assesse. The Ld. AR argued that the worthy CIT(A) decided the case exparte without granting opportunity of the hearing and appreciating merits of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) has merely mentioned that during appellate proceedings the appellant has not come forward with explanation. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground without disproving the claims of the appellant with corroborative evidences and confirmed additions made to the retuned income of the appellant assessee in arbitrarily manner in violation of principles of natural justice. I.T.A. No. 74/Asr/2023 Mohammad Maqbool Sofi v. ITO 4 6. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we consider it deem fit to restore back the matter to the file of the AO to pass assessment Order de novo in order to adjudicate the matter of source of disputed cash deposit and business income after considering the written submission and evidences the assesse as may be filed before him during the fresh assessment proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assesse. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order