9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment framed ex-parte without proper opportunity to assessee. 2. Addition of unexplained cash credits without giving opportunity to prove genuineness. 3. Alleged non-compliance with notice under section 143(2). 4. Justification of business income computation. Analysis: Issue 1: Assessment framed ex-parte without proper opportunity to assessee The main contention was that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present evidence regarding the assessment. The assessee argued that the assessment was first completed under section 143(1) and then re-opened under section 143(2)(b) without proper communication. The ITO issued multiple notices under section 143(2) but did not clarify the re-opening of proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notices and attended hearings, but the ITO did not give a reasonable opportunity to explain the cash credits. The Tribunal held that the assessment was unjustified and lacked proper opportunity for the assessee to defend their case. Issue 2: Addition of unexplained cash credits without giving opportunity to prove genuineness The ITO made a substantial addition of Rs. 1,82,000 as unexplained cash credits without allowing the assessee to prove the genuine nature of the credits. The Tribunal noted that the cash credits were mainly insurance amounts received due to the sudden death of the assessee's son. The ITO did not provide a chance for the assessee to present evidence regarding the source of these credits. The Tribunal deemed this addition unjustified and against the principles of natural justice, especially considering the tragic circumstances surrounding the case. Issue 3: Alleged non-compliance with notice under section 143(2) The departmental representative argued that the assessee did not comply with the notice under section 143(2), justifying the ex-parte assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed complied with the notices and attended hearings, indicating a lack of non-compliance. The Tribunal emphasized that the ITO did not issue a notice under section 142(1) demanding specific documents, leading to confusion and lack of clarity in the assessment process. Issue 4: Justification of business income computation The Tribunal also scrutinized the computation of business income by the ITO, which was significantly higher than the returned income. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO did not have a proper basis for computing the business income at a higher figure, indicating a lack of justification for the assessment. The Tribunal deemed the CIT (A) unjustified in confirming the assessment and set aside the orders of the lower authorities, restoring the assessment to the ITO for a fresh decision with proper considerations and observations made in the Tribunal's order.
|
