MANUBHAI HAMIRBHAI DODIYA,BOTAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(10), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 1075/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Manubhai Hamirbhai Dodiya against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,57,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunities for a hearing and passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with notices from both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), leading to a default assessment under Section 144 and a lack of response to appeals. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25792 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KETAN GAJJAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BIPIN JARIWALA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT I.T.A. No.1075/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Manubhai Hamirbhai Dodiya, Nanuumrada, Gadhada, Botad, Gujarat- 396740 PAN : CDHPD 6886 P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(10), Bhavnagar (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bipin Jariwala, AR Respondent by: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 14.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 14.11.2024 O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short), dated 14.12.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 11,57,000/- on account of alleged cash deposited in bank account treated as alleged unexplained money u/s.69A.rws. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex- parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. ITA No. 1075/Ahd/2024 Manubhai Hamirbhai Dodiya Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty u/s.274 rws. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.” 3. On going through the records before me, it is found that the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer which led to passing of Assessing Order u/s 144 of the Act. Further, it is also found that the assessee has absolutely failed to respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before me, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the Assessing Officer wherein the primary default has occurred. For the proposed levy of cost of Rs.10,000/-, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the cost proposed may be reduced to Rs.5,000/- which is found to be justifiable. The assessee shall deposit the same amount in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and produce the receipt of the same before the ld. CIT(A) who would initiate the appellate proceedings afresh and complete the proceedings after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14.11.2024 /- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 14/11/2024 btk ITA No. 1075/Ahd/2024 Manubhai Hamirbhai Dodiya Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ\rेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b\tथ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड\u001f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "