Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 139 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5964 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
01-10-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
11-09-2024
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
09-07-2024
Judgement Text
" \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE \n \nITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6 \n \n \nBEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nAND \nHON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER \n \nITA No. 1470/PUN/2024 \nAssessment Year : 2014-2015 \nShrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar \nA-38, S.No-55, H.No-1, \nSadbhav Co-op. Hsg. Society, \nKothrud, Pune-411029 \nPAN: AHSPC3607Q. \n \n \n \n \n \n . . . . . . . Appellant \nV/s \nThe Income Tax Officer, \nWard-3(3), Pune. \n \n \n \n \n \n . . . . . . . Respondent \n \nAppearances \nAssessee by : None for the Assessee \nRevenue by : Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’] \nDate of conclusive Hearing : 11/09/2024 \nDate of Pronouncement :01/10/2024 \nORDER \nPER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; \nThis appeal agitates DIN & Orders ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-\n205/1065259200(1) dt. 30/05/2024 passed by the first appellate \nauthority [‘Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn confirms the ex-\nparte order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by \nthe National e-Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] for \nassessment year 2014-15 [‘AY’ hereinafter]; \n\n \nShrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar Vs ITO \nITA No. 1470/PUN/2024 AY: 2014-15 \nITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 \n \n \n2. \nThis case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of \nthe appellant, on the primary briefing from the Revenue and \nhaving regard to order-sheet entries we deem it to advance ex-\nparte u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 and adjudicate the limited issue. \n \n3. \nBriefly stated facts of the cases are that, the assessee is an \nindividual who filed his return of income on 20/12/2014 declaring \ntotal income of ₹4,94,303/-. A search u/s 132 of the Act was \ncarried on ‘M/s Sri Renuka Mata Multi-State Co-Op. Credit \nSociety Ltd’ [‘Society’ hereinafter] with whom the assessee was \nmaintaining saving account wherein he deposited cash to the tune \n₹32,16,405/- during the year under consideration. Upon the \nreceipt of aforestated information the assessee’s case after \nrecording reasons & obtaining approval was reopened for \nassessment u/s 147 of the Act. Various notices including a show \ncause notice issued during the course of re-opened assessment \nremained unattended by the assessee. This effective non-\nrepresentation led to failure on the part of the assessee to explain \nnature & source of such cash deposits, owning to which the Ld. \nAO treated same as unexplained money u/s 69A and added the \nsame to total income and accordingly framed the assessment u/s \n147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. \n\n \nShrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar Vs ITO \nITA No. 1470/PUN/2024 AY: 2014-15 \nITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6 \n \n \n4. \nThe assessee assailed the former addition in first appeal \nunsuccessfully. Aggrieved assessee challenged the impugned \naction of Ld. NFAC on two argumentative grounds, hence in view \nof rule 8 of ITAT-Rules 1963 reproduction thereof dispensed with. \n \n5. \nWithout touching the ground & the merits of the case, we \nhave heard the Ld. DR on the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal \nof appeal by the Ld. NFAC and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused \nmaterial placed on record. \n \n \n6. \nWe observed that, neither during the course of re-opened \nassessment before the Ld. AO nor during the course of first \nappellate proceeding before the Ld. NFAC the appellant assessee \ncould furnish / produce any convincing documents in support of \nhis claim and in explaining true nature and source of cash \nbalances available with him prior to depositing the same in the \naccount maintained with the society. The absence of cogent \nevidences & effective non-representation led to ex-parte \nassessment and since assessee was indifferent in his conduct in \nfirst appellate proceedings, the Ld. NFAC reiterating the findings \nof the Ld. AO countenanced the addition made in best judgment \nassessment \n\n \nShrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar Vs ITO \nITA No. 1470/PUN/2024 AY: 2014-15 \nITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6 \n \n \n7. \nFrom para 5.2 of the impugned order, we however noted \nthat, during the course of first appellate proceedings vide three \nnotices 03/05/2024, 09/05/2024 & 14/05/2024 the Ld. NFAC \ncalled upon the assessee to comply & produce requisite details in \nless than seven days therefrom. Ostensibly, these opportunities of \nhearing granting the appellant assessee less than a reasonable \nperiod of fifteen days in each case in our considered view clearly \nsuggest these were only a paper opportunity granted to create \naudit trail and not with an intent to seek real compliance. This \nperiod of seven days allowed to appellant to comply in our \nconsidered opinion is not a reasonable period, because the \nopportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and \neffective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a \nmere paper opportunity. This is so held in ‘CIT v. Panna Devi \nSaraogi’ [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). In the case of ‘Smt. Ritu Devi v. \nCIT’ [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), time of just few days was \ngiven to the assessee to furnish reply which was also held as denial \nof real opportunity. As held in ‘E. Vittal v. Appropriate Authority’ \n[1996] 221 ITR 760 (AP), where a decision is based upon a \ndocument in a proceeding, copy of the same should be provided to \nthe affected party according reasonable period to negate, \n\n \nShrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar Vs ITO \nITA No. 1470/PUN/2024 AY: 2014-15 \nITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6 \n \n \notherwise, it would violate the principles of natural justice as the \nopportunity of being heard should be an effective opportunity and \nnot an empty formality, as the denial of reasonable opportunity \nrenders the action/order void. \n \n8. \nIn view of the aforestated discussion, we are of considered \nview that, the action of the Ld. NFAC is suffered from sufficiency \nof reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce necessary \nevidential material in support of his claim and to represent \neffectively vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought. It \nshall be worthy to underlined that the opportunity of being heard \nshould be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be \nempty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the \ndoctrine of natural justice is a facet of fair play in action and no \nperson shall be saddled with a liability without being heard. \n \n9. \nRelying on Hon’ble High court of Patna judgement in ‘St. \nPaul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ (2003) 262 ITR 377 \n(Pat)’, we are mindful to hold that the impugned adjudication is \nunjustified as the assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity \nand time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate his \nclaims as made in the return of income filed. \n\n \nShrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar Vs ITO \nITA No. 1470/PUN/2024 AY: 2014-15 \nITAT-Pune Page 6 of 6 \n \n \n10. In the present case, the Ld. NFAC came to dismiss the appeal \nof the assessee ex-parte violating the principle of natural justice, \nthus suffered therefrom. In the event we deem in all the fairness \nand in the larger interest of justice necessary to accord one more \nreal opportunity to the appellant assessee to comply with notices \nand contest its case on merits. \n \n11. \nIn view of this, without offering any comments on the merits \nof the case, we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and \nremit the file back to the Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith \nde-novo and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of \nthe Act preferable in three effective opportunities of hearing to the \nassessee. Ordered accordingly. \n \n12. \nIn result, the appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL \nPURPOSES. \nIn terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Tuesday 01st day of October, 2024. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n -S/d- \n \n \n \n \n \n -S/d- \n VINAY BHAMORE \n \n \n \n G. D. PADMAHSHALI \n JUDICIAL MEMBER \n \n ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nपुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 01st day of October, 2024. \nआदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : \n1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. \n \n \n2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. \n \n3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. \n4. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned. \n \n5. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune \n6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n आिेश नुस र / By Order \nवररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary \n \n \n \nआयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. \n"
Mehul