Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANJUNATHA.G
O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai in dated 20.03.2023. The assessment order was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2020-21 u/s.144 r.w.s. 145C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 30.09.2021.
Today when this appeal was called for hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee has filed adjournment petition. But going through the facts of the case, we noticed that this case can be decided ex-parte qua assessee. Hence, appeal was taken up for hearing.
At the outset, we noticed that the assessee has raised a ground regarding violation of principles of natural justice and not affording proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and passed ex-parte order even before the time allowed to assessee, till 22.03.2023, whereas the ex-parte order was passed on 20.03.2023. The assessee has raised the following ground Nos.2 & 3 qua,
1. The ex-parte order dated 20.03.2023 of the ld.CIT(A)-18 in for the assessment year 2020-2021 is contrary to facts, opposed to law and untenable.
On Natural Justice 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred in not affording proper and adequate opportunity and passed the ex parte order in hurry before the time given to the Appellant in the Adjournment granted till 22.03.2023. 2.1 The impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and hence be set aside”.
3.1 When these were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he could not controvert the above fact situation and also gone through para 4 of CIT(A) order, which reads as under:-
250 of the Act. The assessee did not respond to any of these notices. The acknowledgment for service of notice dated 28.02.2023, through which final opportunity was given, has been placed on file. There has been no response from the appellant to the final notice also. Therefore, based on the material available on record, the issues are adjudicated in subsequent paragraphs.
We also noted that the CIT(A) has not discussed the issue of addition of difference in closing stock of Rs.23,77,200/- but adjudicated by a non-speaking order. Hence, in entirety of facts, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.