Nitin Sachdeva vs ITO

PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2015-16, arising out of the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and penalty order passed u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessment was framed exparte by the AO and such assessment was also sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is a non-resident since 2012 and during the year under consideration the assessee earned salary income in Singapore which was taxable outside India as per the laws and regulations of the tax authorities of Singapore Government. For the assessment year under consideration the assessee filed return of income in Singapore declaring his total income. As there was no income which has been earned by the assessee in India during the assessment year under consideration the assessee was not obligated to furnish his income tax return under section 139 of the Act. However, the AO reopened the assessment of the assessee based on the information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA under the head ‘NMS’ cases and accordingly a show cause notice was issued under section 148 A(b) of the Act requiring the assessee to justify non filing of income tax return as the assessee purchased immovable properties for Rs.1,08,10,000/- and made time deposit amounting to Rs.18 lacs during the assessment year.

Ld. Counsel submits that the notice was not complied with by the assessee as it was sent to an e-mail address belonging to his father in law Shri Subhash Grover who is approximately 77 years of age and due to severe medical conditions Sh. Subhash Grover was not regularly checking his e-mail and was unaware of ongoing assessment proceedings. Thus, the assessee could not receive the said communication resulting in passing exparte order by the AO u/s.147 of the Act.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that as a matter of fact the assessee had purchased only immovable property of Rs.55,72,015/- which was sourced from loan taken by the assessee of Rs.43,43,414/-. The assessee made time deposit of Rs.18 lacs from out of the salary earned in Singapore and remitted to India to NRI account. Without considering all these submissions the AO made exparte assessment making addition of Rs.30,28,601/- on account of unexplained investment. The additional evidences furnished by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) were also ignored by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel submits that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for making assessment afresh after considering all the evidences.

The Ld. DR has no serious objection.

Hearing rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below and evidences furnished by the assessee before us. We observed that the assessee is a non resident and had furnished various details in the course of assessment proceedings which were not considered by the AO in proper perspective. Therefore, in the interest of justice we feel it appropriate to remit this appeal to the file of the AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. We order accordingly.

Since we have remitted the quantum appeal to the file of the AO for fresh assessment the penalty appeal is also restored to the file of the AO.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.