POKAR VALLABHBHAI BAVABHAI HUF,RAJKOT V. .ITO WARD 2(1)(5) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 373/RJT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Pokar Vallabhaai Bavabhai HUF, the appellant, contesting an order from the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the addition of Rs.19,80,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the order was a non-speaking one and did not adequately address the facts and evidence presented. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard during the assessment proceedings, which constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring that the appellant is given a fair opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34216 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURANG KHAKHAR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.373/Rjt/2023 (AY-17-18) Pokar V Bavabhai HUF 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट Ɋायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.373/RJT/2023 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: (2017-18) Pokar Vallabhaai Bavabhai HUF, Plot No.7/B, “Bhavdeep”, Mayur Nagar, Vidyakunj Society, Main Road, Rajkot-360 004 बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 Öथायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. PAN/GIR No.AACHP 9310 E (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) .. (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 19/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)/NFACC’], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 11.09.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 02.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: ITA No.373/Rjt/2023 (AY-17-18) Pokar V Bavabhai HUF 2 “1) The honourable Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding cash deposits of Rs.19,80,000 (actual cash deposit Rs.19,88,000) as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts in passing the order as the order passed is non-speaking order and without going into the detailed facts of the case placed on record and without dealing it in the appellate order as to why the same is not accepted and thus the order appeal against is passed is a non-speaking order and without dealing with the evidences placed on record and thus the order is bad in law as well as on facts and required to be quashed. 3) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi as well as the Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(5), has erred in law as well as on facts in making and confirming an addition of Rs.19,80,000 under section 69A of the Act is purely based on surmises and conjectures required to be deleted.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld.CIT(A) has granted opportunities of being heard to assessee. The Ld. Counsel also stated that assessee has raised ground No.2 before Ld.CIT(A) also and submitted the written submission to the effect that Assessing Officer has not given adequate opportunities of being heard to assessee, which is reproduced below: “The case for the relevant year was picked up for scrutiny and proceedings were started in September, 2019 and completed in November, 2019. Show cause notice issued on 27.11.2019 and time to comply notice was on or before 29.11.19 in spite of the fact that case was time barring on 31.12.19. Thus, just two days time was given to comply show cause notice. Thus, proper opportunity was not given to present the case before the ld. AO and therefore appellant was unable to comply the show cause notice. Due to non-compliance of show cause notice, the assessment has been finalized with the addition of Rs.1980,000/-. The appellant should not suffer on the ground of non-appearance.” The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also argued the issue on merit before us stating that entire documents and evidences were submitted before Assessing Officer hence addition may be deleted and relied on several case laws. From the above facts, it is clear that assessee did not get adequate opportunities to present his case, therefore, we are of the view ITA No.373/Rjt/2023 (AY-17-18) Pokar V Bavabhai HUF 3 that matter may be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. 4. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue stated that assessee has not explained the genuineness of cash deposit in his bank account. The Ld. DR further stated that if the appeal of assessee is to be restored back to the file of assessing officer, then it should be ensured that assessee should participate in the assessment proceedings and should not seek adjournment without valid reasons. 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee. We note that during assessment proceedings assessee was not provided adequate opportunities of being heard by the Assessing Officer and to that effect the assessee has taken ground NO.2 before Ld.CIT(A) and also before us. 6. We have accepted the plea of Ld. Counsel for the assessee in pursuance of ground No.2 raised before us. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him, hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. During assessment proceedings, assessee did not make full compliance, therefore considering these circumstances, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee, to plead its case before the assessing officer. Therefore, we deem it fit and ITA No.373/Rjt/2023 (AY-17-18) Pokar V Bavabhai HUF 4 proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidences at the earliest possible of time, before Assessing Officer, as and when call for. In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19/12/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR.ARJUNLALSAINI) Æयाियक सदÖय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 19/12/2024 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S True Copy आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाडªफाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेशसे, सहायक पंजीकार/Sr.PS/PS आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,राजकोट "