What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend previous hearings, leading to the ex-parte order. However, to uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 arose from an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) confirming an adjustment made by the CPC. The assessee contended that the adjustment led to double taxation of interest income and pleaded for another hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and whether the CPC adjustment resulted in double taxation of interest income.

Suvidhinath Hosiery, Coimbatore vs Assistant Director of Income Tax… | ITAT Chennai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29-10-2022 in the matter of an intimation dated 22-02-2020 issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore (CPC) u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The registry has noted delay of 69 days in the appeal which stand condoned. One of the grounds raised by the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order. The Ld. AR pleaded for 2 - another opportunity of hearing. It was also demonstrated that the adjustment made by CPC amounts to double addition since interest income was already offered to tax. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the adjustment stem from wrong filling of column in Income Tax Return.

We find that the assessee did not attend the appellate proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities. Accordingly the impugned adjustment was confirmed. However, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to first appellate authority for de-novo adjudication by way of a speaking order considering the fact that the interest income is being taxed twice. Needless to add that reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its stand.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th April, 2023.

SUVIDHINATH HOSIERY,COIMBATORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments