9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 35 - AT - Income TaxCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in ex-parte proceedings - Reopening of assessment - unexplained cash deposited in his bank accountHELD THAT - AO while passing the assessment order made on account of unexplained cash credit on the basis of deposit in his bank account. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view that there is non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Before, us the ld. AR for the assessee undertook to be vigilant and to appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We, instead of going into controversy, whether the assessee defaulted in attending the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A). We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required to pass order on points of determination (grounds of appeals), decision therein on and reasons for such decision. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of appeal on merit in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) as and when the date of hearing is fixed and to provide all necessary evidence - Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
Appeal against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 for AY 2011-12 - Dismissal without considering merits, addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee raised grounds challenging the dismissal of the appeal without considering the merits, invoking section 147 of the Act due to cash deposits, and confirming the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 2. The assessee, engaged in coaching and consultancy classes, did not file an income tax return for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings based on information about a cash deposit of ?26 lakhs in the assessee's bank account. The AO issued a notice under section 148, and upon the assessee's response, made an addition of ?2,60,000 as unexplained cash credit, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. During the appeal before the Tribunal, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. The AR cited reasons for non-attendance, requesting another opportunity to present the case. It was contended that the order lacked discussion on the case's merits and that the assessee had a strong case if given a chance to be heard. 4. The Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue argued that the assessee had sufficient opportunities to comply but failed to do so, leading to the ex-parte decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Revenue requested the Tribunal to direct the assessee to be vigilant in attending proceedings to avoid wasting time. 5. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not comply with the requirements of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which necessitates decisions on grounds of appeal and reasons for such decisions. The Tribunal, instead of delving into the non-attendance controversy, directed the appeal back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide all grounds on merit, emphasizing the need for the assessee's presence, submission of evidence, and adherence to hearing schedules without unwarranted adjournments. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, instructing the assessee to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fair consideration of all grounds of appeal in accordance with the law, without delay or unnecessary adjournments. 7. The decision was announced on 12th October 2021 during a virtual court hearing.
|
