MR. THIRUPATHI JAYAAM ANANDA KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(5), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 916/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 October 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even if the assessee was not diligently pursuing it. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2011-12. The assessment was re-opened, and additions were made for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the issue on merits. The need for the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE

Hearing: 17.10.2023

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.05.2023, and pertains to assessment years 2011-12.

Shri Thirupathi Jayaram Ananda Kumar :: 2 ::

2.

The brief facts of the case are that as per the information made available with the Department, the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.54,25,000/- to his bank account. It was further noticed that the assessee along with two others namely, Shri T. J. Ashok Kumar and Shri T.J.Nandakumar, sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.33,75,000/- on 07.06.2010. The assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2011-12. Therefore, the assessment has been re-opened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act") and notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 28.02.2011 was issued and duly served on the assessee.

In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee has filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 on 23.11.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.1,47,600/-. The assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 28.12.2018 and determined total income of Rs.23,90,250/- after making additions towards unexplained cash deposits of Rs.22,42,650/-. The assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but neither appeared nor filed written submissions on this issue. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) by following certain judicial precedents dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution and upheld the additions made towards cash deposits. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and Shri Thirupathi Jayaram Ananda Kumar :: 3 ::

dismissed the appeal without discussing the issue on merits. No doubt, when the assessee is not seriously pursuing their appeal with utmost honesty, there is no option for the appellate authority to dispose off the appeal, but such appeal should be disposed off on merits. In the present case, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution without discussing the issues on merits. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the Ld.CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 17th day of October, 2023, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →