PERIYA GOUNDER NATESAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD 2, TIRUCHENGODE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed with the adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee was assessed on a best judgment basis due to non-attendance at assessment proceedings, leading to an addition of Rs. 13.30 Lacs for unexplained bank deposits. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submissions, upholding the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) to substantiate unexplained bank deposits, despite previous negligence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B/SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा>रण वष> / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Periya Gounder Natesan ITO बनाम/ Thennamarathupalayam Marapparai, Ward-2, Vaiyappamalai, Thiruchengode, Tiruchengode. Vs. Namakkal – 637 410. �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. ABDPN-2148-N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate) for Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARs ��थ� की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22-02-2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22-02-2023 आदेश / O R D E R
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 12-10-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 of the Act on 20-11-2019.
The Ld. AR, at the outset, pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 3. Upon perusal of case records, it could be seen that the assessee has been assessed on best judgment basis u/s. 144 of the Act on 20- 11-2019 wherein the assessee was saddled with addition of Rs.13.30 - 2 - Lacs being unexplained / unproved deposits in the bank account. The assessment was so framed since the assessee did not attend the assessment proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities of hearing as enumerated in Para 5 of the assessment order.
During appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions. However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that the source of cash deposits could not be established by the assessee. The motive of cash withdrawals was not explained by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment as confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before me.
I find that though the assessee has remained negligent in substantiating its case, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, I deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal stand restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his stand failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with adjudication on the basis of material on record.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22nd February, 2023.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026