ABDULRAHIM SATHIK JOHN, SALEM V. ADIT,NFAC, DELHI

ITA 79/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Abdulrahim Sathik John, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's action in assessing a cash deposit of Rs.40,66,800 in the appellant's savings bank account for the assessment year 2012-13 under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that both the initial assessment and the appeal were conducted ex-parte due to the appellant's non-appearance, despite multiple opportunities given by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be inappropriately passed for non-prosecution and not on merits, leading to the decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127459 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘सी’ यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी महावीर संह, उपा य एवं ी जी. मंज ु नाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I. T. A. No. 7 9/ Ch n y/ 2 02 3 ( नधा रणवष / A s s e s sm e nt Yea r : 2 0 1 2- 1 3 ) Mr. Abdulrahim Sathik John 159-D, Kalarampatti Main Road, Kalarampatti,Salem-636 015. V s The ADIT., National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. P AN: B LBP S 6 1 8 3 F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT स ु नवाईक तार ख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 30.03.2023 घोषणाक तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 30.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 / 1046323494(1) dated 15.10.2022. The assessment was completed by the ADIT., NFAC., Delhi, for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order dated 15.09.2021. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against order of the CIT(A) confirming action of the Assessing Officer in 2 ITA No. 79/Chny/2023 making assessment of cash deposit of Rs.40,66,800/- in his savings bank account. 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts & circumstances of the case. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer is ex-parte, and even the order of the CIT(A) is for non- prosecution of appeal and there is no finding recorded except the following:- “There is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of the AO. In view of the fact that there is no material on record to warrant interference in the order of the AO, grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.” 4. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee that despite many notices, the assessee has not represented before the CIT(A), what is alternative with the CIT(A), he could not explain. We noticed that the Assessing Officer has provided five opportunities, but the assessee has not complied with. Even, the CIT(A) has issued various notices and allowed reasonable opportunity to the assessee, but the 3 ITA No. 79/Chny/2023 assessee failed to avail the same. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee, he only pleaded mercy and stated that substantial justice should be done. 5. The Ld.Sr. DR on this, opposed for setting aside of impugned order, but could not argue that the CIT(A) has passed order on merits. 6. After going through facts in its entirety, we noticed that the CIT(A) has passed order for non-prosecution, which is not the position in law. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The assessee will file all the details before the Assessing Officer at the first instance and he will represent as and when called for assessment by the Assessing Officer . In term of above, we set aside order and remit the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law. 4 ITA No. 79/Chny/2023 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 th March, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- ( जी. मंज ु नाथ ) ( महावीर संह ) ( G.Manjunatha ) ( Mahavir Singh ) लेखा सद%य / Accountant Member उपा य / Vice-President चे(नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Date: 30.03.2023 DS आदेश क त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु .त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ु .त/CIT 5. ,वभागीय त न2ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.