The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has expressed displeasure for the careless approach of Faceless AO and Faceless CIT(A).
The bench of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) has expressed dismay at the injudicious manner in which theaddition has been foisted upon the assessee by the authorities below. Had they demonstrated the requisite care and caution and exercised their quasi-judicial/judicial authority with judgment it demands, it would have been appreciable that neither the initiation of reassessment proceedings nor the consequent addition was warranted. The judicious action would have obviated the litigation cost and time and resources, tantamounting to harassment thrust upon the assessee. The kind of mindless assessment and appeal disposal at the first appellate stage reveals failure to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted on the authorities below.
The appellant/assessee did not file his return of income under section 139. From the AIMS information available on the system, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had entered into certain financial transactions during the year whereby total income under the Act exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax in view of the Assessing Officer.
Before the Assessing Officer assessee has made two submissions which Assessing Officer himself has acknowledged in the assessment order. From the perusal of the first submission dated 03.03.2022, it is noted that the assessee has given a detailed note on the nature of his professional activities of practicing law. He has also furnished a complete set of accounts consisting of computation of income, balance sheet and profit and loss account as well as explained details of interest income and other income reflected in Form 26AS. In the balance sheet of the assessee, he has duly reported the advance paid to Orbit Construction for purchase of flat amounting to Rs.3,23,94,000 and reduced it by the amount returned by the builder during the year of Rs.19,45,213.
In the second reply, assessee again explained in detail about the credits appearing in Form 26AS and reconciled the income reported by him in his return filed in response to notice under section 148 .
Assessee thus, explained that what has been added by Assessing Officer is twice the gross amount appearing in Form 26AS downloaded by the assessee. Though the submissions made by the assessee both before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), none of the authorities below has acted with responsibility and in accordance to the provisions of the law to objectively consider the same and deal with it meritoriously.
The tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for the limited purpose of verification to consider the claim of the assessee and pass necessary order in accordance with the provisions of the law.
The tribunal held that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and make his submissions to substantiate the claims.
The ITAT directed the assessee to be diligent in attending the hearing proceedings and not to seek adjournments unless warranted by compelling reasons so as to expedite the disposal.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajendra Bhalchandra Mokashi Versus ITO
Case No.: ITA No. 5154/MUM/2024
Date: 28.04.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Ajeet Manwani
Counsel For Respondent: R. R. Makwana
Read more: Order Dismissing GST Appeal Over Non-Submission Of Certified Copy Quashed: Allahabad High Court
