Praful Chhotubhai Desai, Valsad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7, Vapi, Vapi

ITA 758/SRT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8571 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 758/Srt/2023 (AY: 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Praful Chhotubhai Desai, At Achchhari, St. Karambele, Vial Bhilad, Taluka Umbergam, Dist.- Valsad-396105. PAN No. AMUPD 6333 K Vs. I.T.O., Ward-7, Vapi, Fortune Square-II, Above TBZ, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat-396191. Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri P M Jagasheth, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeal 06/11/2023 Date of hearing 22/02/2024 Date of pronouncement 22/02/2024 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 20/09/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition made by Assessing officer for Rs.29,49,930/- on account of credit entries and cash deposit in bank account as undisclosed investment. 2. The LAO has erred in law and on facts in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act and reopening the case for scrutiny assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. The LAO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.29,49,930/- on account of credit entries and cash deposit in bank account as undisclosed investment. ITA No.758/Srt/2023 Praful Chhotubhai Desai Vs ITO 2 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The LAO has erred in law and on fact in initiation of penalty under section 271(l)(b), 271 (1 )(c) & 271F of the Act. 6. The appellant further craves leave to add, alter, or amend the grounds of appeal.” 2. Rival submission of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the finding of Assessing Officer in a non-speaking order and is not in consonance with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld AR for the assessee submits that in Form-35 while filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has given e-mail address, however, such e-mail address of his consultant who has not informed the assessee in time. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is a senior citizen and residing in village and does not aware and well-versed with the e-mail address. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that even before the Assessing Officer, the assesse could not make compliance in time, therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide it afresh on merit after giving opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is allowed to the assessee to contest the case on merit. ITA No.758/Srt/2023 Praful Chhotubhai Desai Vs ITO 3 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee was given ample opportunity by the lower authorities, it is the assessee who has not availed such opportunity, therefore, even on merit, the assessee is not eligible for any relief. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of credit entries and cash deposit in the bank account as undisclosed income of Rs. 29,49,930/-. The assessing officer passed the assessment order under section 144 of the Act. The action of Assessing Officer was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in ex parte proceedings by not following the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. We are of the view that the substantial right of assessee is involved in the present appeal, therefore, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the assessee is giving one more opportunity to explain the case on merit. Considering the fact that the impugned order is passed ex-parte and without discussing the merits of the case as mandated by section 250(6) of the Act. We further find that assessment order is also completed under section 144, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to cause further ITA No.758/Srt/2023 Praful Chhotubhai Desai Vs ITO 4 delay and seek adjournment without any valid reason and to furnish all the details and his submissions and evidences on various grounds of appeal raised by him, as soon as possible, if so desired without any further delay. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd February, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 22/02/2024 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee – 2. Revenue - 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat