JIGNABEN RUPAREL,RAJKOT V. ITO, WARD-3, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 777/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jignaben Ruparel, the appellant, who contested the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and the subsequent assessment by the Income Tax Department. The appellant, residing in a remote village, had not filed a return of income as her earnings were below the taxable limit. However, she deposited a substantial amount of cash in her bank account, which led to an inquiry under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer treated the deposits as unexplained and added Rs. 44,45,939 to her income. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with hearing notices, which were not communicated to her by her tax consultant. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for another opportunity to present her case, leading to the remand of the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26387 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 777/RJT/2024 ( नधा\u000fरणवष\u000f / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Jignaben Ruparel 142-Rawapar-1, Tal. Nakhatrana, Kutch-370625 Vs. The ITO, NFAC, Delhi The Income Tax Office, ward-3, Gandhidham-370625 \u0013थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AVHPR9505M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 09.08.2024, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 23.03.2023. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC erred on facts as also in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard. Page | 2 Jignaben Paparel v. ITO ITA No. 777/Rjt/2024 (AY 2015-16) 2) The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in rejecting ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the income tax act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, proceedings-initiated u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment finalized on such valid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs. 44,45,939/- made on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain sources of cash deposited in the bank accounts held with Dena bank. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which deserves to be deleted may kindly be deleted. 4) Your Honour’s appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any for more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case,that the appellant is living in remote village Ravapar in Kutch district. During the year, she earned rental income and interest income which was below the taxable limited. Therefore, return of income was not filed. The assessee has deposited a cash of Rs. 62,36,200/- in Dena Bank, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Return of income was filed in reply to the notice declare income of Rs. 42,000/-. The assessee is replied to notice and submitted details of deposit. The Assessing Officer make a assessment considering the cash deposited in the bank as unexplained money and make an addition of Rs. 44,45,939/-. 4. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO, vide order dated 23.03.2023. There was no compliance with the notices of hearing by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 09.08.2024. 5. The assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Page | 3 Jignaben Paparel v. ITO ITA No. 777/Rjt/2024 (AY 2015-16) 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not aware about the notices and hearing of the case. The tax consultant did not inform about the notices and requested for one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR. s 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noted that the several notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearings of the case. but there was no compliance due to that hearing notices were served on email Id, which is delivered to his previous consultant who did not inform to the assessee about the notices of hearing. We are of the view that the assessee deserve an opportunity to explain the case before the Ld. CIT(A). in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct to the assessee to submit the relevant details/ documents/ evidence, if it is required by the Ld. CIT(A) for disposed of appeal. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04 -04-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot (True Copy) \u001bदनांक/ Date: 04/04/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee Page | 4 Jignaben Paparel v. ITO ITA No. 777/Rjt/2024 (AY 2015-16) 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "