NARMADA PUROHIT,INDORE vs. THE I T O 5(5), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 472/IND/2019Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 May 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that no proper opportunity of being heard was provided by the CIT(A) due to the latter's absence on scheduled hearing dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether additions made under Section 68 were justified and if the assessee was required to maintain books of account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 44AD,Section 44AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore dated 21.02.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1.That, the ex-party order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as the same has been passed without service of notice at the given email address or by notice at the given postal address.

2.

That, the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act under the head cash deposit in saving bank accounts is without material and is contradictyory to the facts and circumstances of the case and also bad in law.

3.

That the assessee filed returns of income showing business u/s 44AD. Therefore, assessee was not requird to maintain books of account.

SMC – Narmada Purohit 2 of 2019

4. That, the assessee is not required to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA of the Income Tax Act.

5.

That the assessee craves to add, amend, alter and modify all or any of the grounds of appeal.”

2. At the outset of the hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee contended that no proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that on 18.12.2018,04.02.2019 & 21.02.2019, he was informed that ld. CIT(A) would not be attending the office on these days. It was further submitted that the Counsel himself had gone to the office of the ld. CIT(A) and found that ld. CIT(A) was not available.

Therefore, it was prayed that ld. CIT(A) may be directed in this regard. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR did not object to the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee.

3. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, the assessee’s matter is liable to be reconsidered by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) should decide the appeal afresh in terms as indicated hereinabove after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law and the assessee is also directed to cooperate/appear before ld. CIT(A) in this regard.

SMC – Narmada Purohit 3 of 2019

4.

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

Order was pronounced in the open court on 28.05.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →