PRAVIN SURESHKUMAR JETHLIYA,JALNA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, IT WARD 2, JALNA

ITA 1827/PUN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Pravin Sureshkumar Jethliya against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed his appeal in limine for non-prosecution without addressing the merits of the case. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) added an amount of Rs.37,41,137 as the assessee's income due to discrepancies in the reported capital balances for the years ending 2015 and 2016. The Tribunal found that the NFAC and the ITO had not provided adequate opportunity for the assessee to present his case, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal directed a de novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32548 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. S. RAJPUROHIT
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1827/PUN/2024 \u000bनधा\u000fरण वष\u000f / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Pravin Sureshkumar Jethliya, Station Road, Partur, Jalna – 431 501 Maharashtra PAN : AEYPJ6375L Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Jalna Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.03.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed the return of income on 26.09.2016 disclosing total income at Nil. The said return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for Scrutiny under CASS for verifying Whether the share capital is genuine and from disclosed sources. Statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) calling upon the assessee to submit the requisite details as called for. In response, the assessee submitted the details. On noticing that the closing capital as on 31.03.2015 was of Rs.1,67,45,947/- and the opening capital balance was shown at Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 17.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 17.10.2024 ITA No.1827/PUN/2024 2 Rs.2,04,87,084/-, the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference of Rs.37,41,137/- by issuing notices u/s.142(1). In the absence of any compliance from the side of assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.11.2018 passed u/s.143(3) was constrained to complete the assessment by making addition of Rs.37,41,137/- as assessee’s income. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, without going into merits of the issue. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard the ld. Sr.DR and perused the material on record. From mere perusal of para 3 of the assessment order, it would be clear that the notices were issued through e-assessment/ITBA portal. It is also not clear that the Assessing Officer/NFAC had issued the notice(s) of hearing and also there is no proof of service of notices of hearing. In the circumstances, it can be presumed that the authorities had passed the impugned orders without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent the matter and this approach of the authorities is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the authorities had fell in serious error by not adjudicating the issue in appeal on merits. The settled position of law mandates the NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. ITA No.1827/PUN/2024 3 Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, I deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee, in accordance with law. I order accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 17th day of October, 2024. Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 17th October, 2024. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant. 2. \r\u000eयथ\f / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "