KALANIKETHAN TEXTILES & RETAILS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity, considering the circumstances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard, citing the ill-health and subsequent demise of their authorized representative's wife. The revenue argued that sufficient opportunities were provided, but the assessee failed to appear.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether additions under Section 68 and disallowance of expenditure were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10281/2016-17/CIT(A)- 2, dated 8/4/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15.
The assessee has raised four grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred: (1) In not granting proper opportunity to the appellant company and adjudicating the appeal ex-parte thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
(2) In not considering the e-m ails seeking adjournment due to the Authorised Representative not in a position to attend due to ill-health of his wife and subsequent demise departing to heavenly abode. (3) In confirming the addition of Rs. 53,30,476/- as unexplained U/s. 68 and ignoring the evidence on record. (4) Confirming the addition of disallowing expenditure of Rs. 36,23,993/- without appreciating the evidence on record.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us stating that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor its Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR as well as the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings, failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 19th April, 2021.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026