This document provides a detailed analysis of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s final decision on the case between Geetu Kamra, Delhi and ITO, Ward-58(6), New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The case number is ITA 2623/DEL/2022, presided over by Judicial Member Shri Kul Bharat.
The appeal filed by the assessee, Geetu Kamra, was directed against the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue in this case involved multiple grounds, including the legality of the assessment order, the addition of cash deposits as unexplained income under section 69A, and procedural fairness.
During the hearing on 12.06.2023, the assessee was not represented by anyone, while the Revenue was represented by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR. The Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the appeal based on the materials on record and submissions made by the Revenue.
The primary grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were:
1. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order dated 04.12.2019, which the assessee claimed was erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The assessment order dated 04.12.2019 was alleged to be barred by limitation and violative of section 153 of the Act.
3. The completion of assessment under sections 144/143(3) was challenged due to the lack of proper opportunity of hearing.
4. The addition of Rs. 3,218,000 as unexplained cash deposits during demonetization was contested under section 69A of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not attended the proceedings since 12.12.2022 and had not responded to defect notices. The defect noted was that Form No.36 was signed by the Ld. Authorized Representative instead of the assessee. Additionally, notices sent by the Registry through speed post were returned unserved with the remark ‘no such person.’ The assessee did not provide any current address to the Registry where notices of hearing could be served.
Due to procedural defects and non-appearance by the assessee, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective. The dismissal was based on the assessee’s failure to remove defects and lack of attendance during the proceedings.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st June, 2023.
(KUL BHARAT)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
This case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and actively participating in the appeal process. The decision underscores the necessity for appellants to address defect notices and ensure representation during hearings to avoid dismissal of their appeals.
The appellant, Geetu Kamra, challenged the assessment order on multiple grounds, including procedural fairness and the addition of cash deposits as unexplained income under section 69A. The CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
The appellant argued that the assessment order was erroneous and barred by limitation. Additionally, the appellant contended that the assessment was completed without providing a proper opportunity for hearing and that the addition of cash deposits was unjustified.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to attend the proceedings and respond to defect notices. The Tribunal noted that the defect in Form No.36 was not rectified, and notices sent to the assessee’s address were returned unserved. Due to these procedural issues, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective.
The Tribunal’s decision in the case of Geetu Kamra, Delhi vs ITO, Ward-58(6), New Delhi, reaffirms the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in tax appeals. The dismissal of the appeal due to procedural defects and non-appearance underscores the necessity for appellants to actively participate in the appeal process and address any defects promptly.
Final Tribunal Order for Geetu Kamra, Delhi vs ITO, Ward-58(6), New Delhi, Assessment Year 2017-18
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform