RAMBHUKTA APPARAO,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 27/VIZ/2020Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 June 2021AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice and ensure the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as the assessee and their representative did not appear. The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer without independent findings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper notice and without deciding on merits is valid. Whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Suseel Kr. Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, Sr.DR
Hearing: 14/06/2021

O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18/11/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 [for short, “ld. Commissioner”], Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

In this case, ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order as ex-parte, by concluding as under:-

“4. Ground Nos. 1 & 8 are general in nature and no need to adjudicate separately. 5. Ground Nos. 2,3,4,5 & 6 related to assessment made by the Assessing Officer by making addition of Rs. 25,48,907/- u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. 5.2. I have carefully considered the statement of facts, the grounds of appeal and also gone through the order passed by the AO and the information available on the record. It was noticed from the record that the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 25,48,907/- towards the income under the head of Long Term Capital Gains. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appellant preferred the present appeal. During the course of appellate proceedings neither the appellant nor the Authorized Representative has appeared in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. Since the appellant has not produced any substantial evidence in support of its claim either before the AO or during the course of appeal proceedings, it was construed that there is no explanation to offer by the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition of Rs. 25,48,907/- under the head of Long Term Capital Gains the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, the appeals made by the appellant on these grounds stand dismissed.

6. Ground No.7 relates to the charging of interest under section 234A and 234B of the I.T. Act. 6.2 Charging of interests u/sec. 234A and 234B is consequential in nature, hence, not adjudicated separately.

7. In the result, the appeal made by the appellant for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is hereby dismissed.”

3.

The Ld. Commissioner though in first para of the impugned order observed to the effects “in response to the final opportunity of hearing, none appeared, therefore the appeal is finalised based on the information available on record”, however, from the order, it is not clear by which mode notice has been sent and as to whether notice has been served upon the Assessee or not and how many times, notices have been issued and/or served.

4.

The ld. Commissioner has not decided the appeal on merits by independent finding, but just upheld the assessment order. As the matter requires factual considerations and analyzations and the Assessee failed to plead its case before the Ld. Commissioner, due to non-appearance on one or other reasons, therefore considering the principles of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand back to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say while affording reasonable opportunity(s) of being heard to the Assessee, hence ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.

Order Pronounced in open Court on this 14th day of June, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →