Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filing of appeal, if any, and thereafter, decide the appeal of the assessee on merits, in accordance with law. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri P. F. Jain, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR ORDER PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short Ld. CIT(A) ), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short NFAC ), Delhi vide order dated 12.12.2023 passed for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in Dismissing the appeal of the assessee in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice, nor did he respond to subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Based on the available material, the Assessing Officer (AO) made two additions during the course of assessment: an unexplained investment of Rs. 48,35,282/- under section 69A, and unexplained credit entries totaling to Rs. 11,50,736/-. The assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 59,86,020/-. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), asserting several grounds. Firstly, the assessee contended that the assessment order was issued without jurisdiction because the notice under section 148 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ved that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had amended the Income Tax Rules to require electronic filing for appeals since March 1, 2016, with a specific Circular extending the deadline for e-filing until June 15, 2016. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the assessee's assertion that they could file manually based on their option to submit a paper return was not found to be valid. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the Rules clearly stated that the conditions for manual filing did not apply to the assessee, who did not meet the age or income criteria specified for paper return filing, since the appellant was neither 80 years old nor had an income below Rs. 5 lakhs. Consequently, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that given that the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase of LRs Management K/s vs. DCIT in ITA No. 300/Rjt/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14, the ITAT Rajkot Bench made the following observations which are reproduced as below: 5. We have heard both the parties. We find that the dismissal by the ld.CIT(A) of the assessee s appeal filed before it manually was highly unjustifiable and was not even in accordance with the notification issued by the CBDT No.S.O.637(E) dated 1.3.2016 as referred to by the ld.CIT(A) himself. As per the said notification, as noted in para 1.2 of the CIT(A) s order, all assesses whose returns were required to be filed electronically, had to file their appeals to the Ld.CIT(A) also electronically. The assessee had demonstrated that being an agent of freight beneficiary, voyage retu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vs. ITO in ITA No. 252 to 254/Srt/2022 for A.Y. 2011-12 2013-14, the Tribunal made the following observations while dealing with the issue: 8. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We note that ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for adjudication on the ground that the PAN Number of Bhaveshbhai Arvindbhai Buha (individual) was used to file appeal for M/s. Sai Ashish Developers (AOP). The ld. CIT(A) held that Association of Person (AOP) was different entity than the case of the individual Mr. Bh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates