Manish Kumar Shukla Vs ITO [I.T.A. NO.128/2023] (A.Y 2018-19) (ITAT Agra)
The assessee filed his income tax return on October 31, 2018, declaring a gross income of Rs. 19,67,970. The case was chosen for review because the employer allegedly made excessive contributions to the Provident Fund or Superannuation Fund.
The assessee failed to show up for the assessment despite multiple notices, therefore the AO carried out the assessment while the assessee was away. As a result, the AO denied the assessee’s claims for expenses totalling Rs. 39,20,456 and rejected the books of accounts.
In an appeal to the CIT(A), the appellant disputed the Assessing Officer’s ruling, claiming that the assessment was finished without considering all relevant information. The AO’s ruling was affirmed by the CIT(A), who determined the case ex parte because the appellant failed to show up for the appeal procedures.
The assessee filed an appeal with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Agra after being dissatisfied with the CIT(A)’s ruling. Neither the appellant nor any of their representatives showed up for the hearing, yet the Tribunal nonetheless moved forward with the matter.
Further, the ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts without seeing them, despite the necessity to do so before rejection. The Tribunal emphasized the department’s authority to compel the assessee’s attendance and seize books of accounts or other relevant information. It stressed that the assessee’s absence cannot absolve the AO of the need to review the books prior to taking such action.
Therefore, merely because the assessee remained absent on one or two occasions, rejection of books of account whether justifiable or not would also be examined by ld. CIT(Appeals) while deciding the appeal in set aside proceedings.
In conclusion, the ITAT granted the appeal for statistical purposes, overturning the CIT(A)’s ruling and mandating a new adjudication while assuring procedural compliance, including the necessary scrutiny of books before rejection.
To download official order, click here.
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.
The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”