PURSHOTTAM NARAIN SHUKLA,UNNAO V. ITO WARD -2(4), UNNAO-NEW

ITA 157/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Purshottam Narain Shukla, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which dismissed his appeal in limine due to non-compliance. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) included an addition of Rs. 51,00,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits, citing non-compliance with hearing notices, which the appellant attributed to illness and improper service of notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not passing a speaking order on the merits as required by section 250(6) of the Act, despite the appellant's non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471461 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KRISHNA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: P.K. KAPOOR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.157/LKW/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Purshottam Narain Shukla 2/63 Kanchan Nagar, Shuklaganj, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh-209801. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4) Makhi House, Civil Lines, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh- 209801. PAN:AXNPS4591E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri. P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 08 10 2024 Date of pronouncement: 16 10 2024 O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]/NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 27/01/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance. 2. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. Because the “CIT(A)” was not justified in dismissing the appeal by passing the impugned order ex-parte without affording due and effective opportunity of being heard to the “appellant” and consequently the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and matter restored to “CIT(A)” for passing the order a-fresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the “appellant”. 2. Because non-compliance of notices of hearing issued by the Ld. “CIT(A)” was caused due to illness of the assessee owing to which he could not attend to the notices and get the submission filed before the Ld. “CIT(A)” and on a due consideration of this fact, the matter deserves to be restored to the Ld. “CIT(A)” for deciding the appeal ITA No.157/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 5 afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the “appellant”. 3. Because without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the notices of hearing issued by “CIT(A)” were not served on the “appellant” in the prescribed manner, as per information given in Form No.35, and consequently, the ex-parte order passed by “CIT(A)” deserves to be set aside and matter restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing the order a-fresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the “appellant” 4. Because the Ld. “CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.51,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, on account of un-explained money u/s 69A of the Act on the ground that the “appellant” did not file any details before the Assessing Officer to explained the source of cash deposit and during the appellate proceedings also the “appellant” failed to furnish any reply/documentary evidences in respect of his appeal. 5. Because as per the material and information placed on the assessment record, the sum of Rs.56,00,000/- deposited in cash in the joint bank account in Central Bank of India, included the sums belonging to appellant as well as his two daughters in-law and on a due consideration of such fact, the entries addition of Rs.51,00,000/- made in the hands of the “appellant” is not correct either on facts or in law. 6. Because the “appellant” s portion of sums included in the overall amount of Rs.56,00,000/- deposited in the Joint bank account was out of well-defined sources not liable to taxation therefore the same too could not have been subjected to taxation in the hands of the “appellant”. 7. Because the authorities below have passed the respective orders without considering/appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made and the evidences furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. Because the order appealed against is contrary to fact, law and principles of natural justice.” 3. In this case, vide assessment order dated 24/12/2019, the assessee was filed return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at Rs.5,48,770/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23/09/2018 which was served upon the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 18/10/2019 which was served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of corrugated boxes and has rental ITA No.157/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5 income from house property besides agriculture income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on a total income of 56,48,770/- by making an addition of Rs.51,00,000/- u/s 69A, read with Section 115BBE of the Act, treating the unexplained money deposited in the bank account of the assessee. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 27/01/2024, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The present appeal before us has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 27/01/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. At the time of hearing before us, the Assessee was represented by Shri. P. K. Kapoor, (C.A), and Revenue was represented by Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Ld. Departmental Representative. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on merits of the additions made. He further submitted that the assessee’s appeal was dismissed in limine for want of prosecution without any discussion on the merits of the additions. He submitted that the issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order on merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR for Revenue expressed no objection to this. 6. We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on records. On perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 27/01/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued notices, which however, were not complied with by the assessee. Taking adverse view of non-compliance from ITA No.157/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 5 assessee’s side the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for want of prosecution. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has statutory duty, prescribed u/s 250(6) of the Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case whether or not there was any representation from the assessee’s side. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the assessee’s appeal, is required to be in writing, and it is and the order is further required to contain the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, it is the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits of the case. Thus, dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine, for want of prosecution, without going into the merits of the case was erroneous on the part of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. In view of the foregoing, and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case before us; we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27/01/2024 and we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass denovo order after due verification of fact and after reasonable opportunity to the applicant/assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid direction. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/10/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [SUBHASH MALGURIA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16/10/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) ITA No.157/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar "