TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee granted additional hearing by Tribunal for assessment year. Appeal delay condoned, matter sent back for fresh decision.</h1> <h3>Shri Banwari Lal Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (2), Jaipur</h3> Shri Banwari Lal Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (2), Jaipur - TMI Issues:1. Ex-parte order by CIT (A)2. Lack of notice to the assessee3. Invocation of section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 19614. Addition of Rs. 1,44,00,000/- on account of bank deposits5. Delay in filing the appealEx-parte Order by CIT (A):The appeal was against an ex-parte order by the ld. CIT (A) dated 30.08.2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee contended that they were not served with the order and only became aware of it upon receiving a notice for demand recovery. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal within 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order. The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned based on various judgments supporting substantial justice. The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year under consideration.Lack of Notice to the Assessee:The assessee claimed they were not served with the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) and only learned about it upon receiving a notice for demand recovery. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the lack of notice. An affidavit by the assessee supported the claim that they received the copy of the order on 08.04.2019 and filed the appeal on 03.05.2019. The assessee argued that the delay should be condoned, citing judgments emphasizing substantial justice.Invocation of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The AO made additions on account of unexplained bank deposits under section 144 of the IT Act. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the invocation of section 144 and the additions, noting the persistent non-compliance by the appellant in the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT (A) observed that the appellant did not respond to multiple notices issued during the assessment proceedings, leading to the decision based on available records. The Tribunal, however, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the ld. CIT (A).Addition of Rs. 1,44,00,000/- on Account of Bank Deposits:The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,44,05,620/- on account of unexplained bank deposits and interest, which was maintained with the Central Bank of India, Bad Ke Balaji, Jaipur. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed this addition due to the lack of compliance and non-response from the appellant during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, set aside the matter for the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after giving one more opportunity to the assessee.Delay in Filing the Appeal:The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the lack of notice served to the assessee regarding the order passed by the ld. CIT (A). The assessee received the certified copy of the order on 08.04.2019 and filed the appeal on 03.05.2019. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, citing various judgments supporting substantial justice. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year under consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
