PURNAND RAMCHANDRA MISHRA,NAGPUR V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 281/NAG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Nagpur, for the assessment year 2019-20. The primary contention revolves around the jurisdiction and the procedural validity of the notices issued under sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the ownership of a sum of Rs. 67,50,000, claimed to be his deemed income under section 69A, arguing that he was not the owner of the money found. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which was contested in this appeal. The Tribunal, emphasizing the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24247 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIPKUMAR SALUNKE
• Assessee Lawyers: K.M. GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.281/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2019–20) Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra 593, Pugaliya Kothi, Naik Gali Dharaskar Road, Itwari, Nagpur 440 002 PAN – AKTPM9237C ……………. Appellant v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–2(2), Nagpur ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri K.M. Gupta Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 18/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 07/06/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019–20. 2. The following grounds have been raised by the assessee:– “1. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction to assess the assessee u/s 143(3), as the notice u/s 143(2) was issue beyond the time limit prescribed for issue of notice. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2 Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra 3. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, Assessing Officer has failed to prove that assessee is owner of money found Rs. 67,50,000/- and thus has erred in applying provision of Sec 69A to held that Rs.67,50,000/- is the deemed income of assessee. 4. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the Assessing has erred in holding that Shri Anand Pugaliya is not the owner of Rs. 67,50,000/- in the circumstances when Assessing Officer himself accepts books of account of Shri Anand Pugaliya in his own case in the order passed u/s 143(3) which evidences the payment of Rs. 67,50,000/- to the assessee. 5. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the assessee is owner of money found Rs. 67,50,000/- when the Department itself in a proceeding under Prohibition of Benami Act held that assessee is not the owner of money found at Rs. 67,50,000/-. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, whether a person can simultaneously held to be owner of cash u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a benamidar of the same cash u/s 2(9)(D) of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 by the Income Tax Department. 7. That, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and law applicable thereto, CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and failed to passed order on merits, which is against the provision of Sec. 250 and decided case laws. 8. That, the assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the course of hearing.” 3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A). 2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesse, however, the assessee did not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished 3 Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A). 3. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, we am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/11/2024 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 28/11/2024 4 Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "