NARMADA INN,BESIDE SHUBH MOTORS, KATRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDLA WARD, MANDLA

ITA 135/JAB/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Narmada Inn against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed a significantly higher assessed income for the year 2017-18 compared to the income declared by the assessee. The primary issues in the appeal included the ex-parte nature of the NFAC's decision, the substantial difference in assessed and declared income, and various disallowances and reclassifications of income. The Tribunal noted the absence of effective representation for the assessee at earlier stages and decided to set aside the lower orders, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31810 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARAT SHEOGANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: H.S. MODH
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Business expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 135/JAB/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narmada Inn, Beside Shubh Motors, Katra, MP-481661. v. Income Tax Officer, Mandla Ward, Mandla, MP-481661. PAN:AAGFN9764J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri H. S. Modh, Adv Respondent by: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 07 01 2025 Date of pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 30.08.2023 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to pass ex-parte order. 2. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to confirmed the income at Rs.28,75,606/- against the returned income at Rs.35,244/-. 3. That the disallowance made at Rs.2,30,149/- on account of payment of Provident Fund is unjustified. 4. That the confirmation of rent receipt of Rs.8,86,840/- considered as house property income as against the business income and allowed deduction u/s 24(2) at Rs.2,66,052/- as against the business expenses is unjustified. 5. That the confirmation of income from marriage garden considered at Rs.19,89,426/- without considered the business expenses is arbitrary and bad in law.” ITA No.135/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 4 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed his return of income on 01.09.2017 through electronically mode for the assessment under consideration, declaring total income at Rs.35,244/-, after taking deduction under Chapter VI-A at Nil. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices but there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed an exparte order thereby he assessed income u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) at Rs.28,75,610/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT also there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee before the lower authorities and without considering the other grounds of appeal, the appeal of the assessee had been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submission and supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee was not vigilant about his case; therefore, the assessee cannot be given benefit of its own negligence. He further submitted that the assessee failed to support his case. Hence, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, there was no effective representation by the assessee before lower ITA No.135/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 4 authorities. It is the case of the assessee that the assessing authority made additions without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material placed before him. It is also contended that the First Appellate Tribunal also did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. 6. Having considered the materials available on record. I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice and in all fair play, the assessee should be given one chance to explain his case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the assessment is restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh and pass denovo assessment order. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/01/2025. Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 08/01/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) ITA No.135/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT (Judicial) 4. The PCIT 5. DR, ITAT, Jabalpur 6. Guard File By order // True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Jabalpur "