SUNITA GARG,INDORE V. ITO 4 (1) INDORE, INDORE

ITA 389/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sunita Garg, the appellant, who contested the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The ITO had made significant additions to the assessee's income, citing unexplained unsecured loans, disallowance of interest on these loans, unexplained deposits in bank accounts, and disallowances under section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision with minimal commentary. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a re-examination of the case with new evidence and agreed with the Departmental Representative's suggestion to remand the case to the JAO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473107 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• 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: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH PORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.S.SOLANKI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.389/Ind/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 Sunita Garg, 26 Maharaja Complex, Kothari Marg, Indore बनाम/ Vs. ITO 4(1), Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABOPG0350N Assessee by Shri S.S. Solanki, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 30.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 16.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-4(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Sunita Garg ITA No. 389/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 Page 2 of 4 2. Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the assessment-order to demonstrate that the AO has made additions of (i) Rs. 87,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans, (ii) Rs. 3,38,175/- on account of disallowance of interest claimed by assessee on such unsecured loans, (iii) Rs. 40,11,000/- on account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c, and (iv) Rs. 2,62,770/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(2) and thereby assessed total income of assessee at Rs. 1,37,63,955/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,52,010/-. Ld. AR submitted that during assessment-proceedings, the assessee was not able to file documentary evidences which has resulted in these hefty additions. However, during first-appeal the assessee could collect part of the evidences and submit before CIT(A) but the CIT(A) merely re- produced the Grounds of Appeal and Assessee’s Submissions and finally upheld AO’s order in just 3 sentences by stating as under: “5. Findings The grounds of appeal, the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the assessee have been carefully considered. There is no material on record to warrant interference with the order of the AO. Grounds of appeal are accordingly dismissed.” 3. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee has collected and having possession of all evidences required by AO for an apt adjudication. These evidences are also filed in Tribunal in the form of a box file. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is ready to file and explain these evidences to AO and also any other evidence as the AO may further require. Accordingly, this case needs to remanded to AO for a fresh adjudication after examination of evidences. Sunita Garg ITA No. 389/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 Page 3 of 4 4. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to remand this case to Jurisdictional AO [“JAO”] and also urges that the assessee should be directed to make adequate representation before JAO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 5. Considering above submissions and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of JAO for a proper verification and adjudication on merit, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The JAO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by JAO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the JAO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 6. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 31/01/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक /Dated : 31/01/2025 Dev/Sr. PS Sunita Garg ITA No. 389/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 Page 4 of 4 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "