CHANDRA VANU KAR,PATTAMUNDAI vs. ITO WARD KENDRAPARA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AT - DUHURIA BAZAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 108/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without the assessee being heard. The assessee claims the addition under Section 69A is explainable and requested another opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the addition made under Section 69A is justifiable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar jena, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr DR
Hearing: 29/0Pronounced: 29/0

This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 10.1.2024 10.1.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10484/2019 Cuttack/10484/2019-20 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, ld AR appeared for appeared for the assessee. Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed order exparte without hearing the exparte without hearing the assessee. It was his submission that if one assessee. It was his submission that if one more opportunity is given the assessee would be in a position to cooperate more opportunity is given the assessee would be in a position to cooperate more opportunity is given the assessee would be in a position to cooperate

P a g e 1 | 3 with ld CIT(A) for disposal of the appeal. He further submitted that the addition u/s.69A is explainable and capable of being verified by the authorities below. Ld Sr DR submitted that enough opportunities had been granted by the ld CIT(A) but the assessee is non-cooperative.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the assessee has not represented his case before the ld CIT(A). Even no document or evidence has been filed in support of the claim of the assessee. Before me, ld AR has prayed to allow one more opportunity to present its case. I also find that the assessment in this case has been passed u/s.144 due to non-representation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500. In the event the cost is not paid, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.

P a g e 2 | 3

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 29/05/2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →