What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer based on the principle of natural justice. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the assessee.

The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, leading to ex-parte orders. The appeals were filed against additions of undisclosed investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard before the Assessing Officer despite prior non-appearance, and the conditions for such an opportunity.

Rajagounder Rajavel, Tiruchengode vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2013/Chny/2019

ITA No.2014/Chny/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 27-09-2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27-09-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 & 2014-15 arises out of separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem [CIT(A)] dated 30.04.2019 & 26.04.2019 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 vide separate orders. In both the &2014/Chny/2019 years, the grievance of the assessee is addition of undisclosed investment.

The Ld. Sr. DR, at the outset, pleaded for dismissal of the appeals on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before any of the lower authorities. The Ld. AR submitted that there was sufficient cause of non-appearance. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before Ld. AO. Having heard rival submissions, the appeals are disposed-off as under.

Upon perusal of orders of lower authorities, we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the proceedings before lower authorities. However, keeping in view the fact that the assessee is an individual and keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. However, this concession would be subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-. The same shall be paid by the assessee within one month from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned Assessing Officer who shall proceed to adjudicate the issues on merits. Needless to add that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.

Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th September, 2022. (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा23 /VICE PRESIDENT लेखासद; /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे*ई/ Chennai; िदनांक/ Dated : 27.09.2022 JPV JPV JPV JPV ITA No.2013 &2014/Chny/2019 आदेशकीWितिलिपअ8ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""यथ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु" (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु"/CIT 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR6. गाड"फाईल/GF

RAJAGOUNDER RAJAVEL,TIRUCHENGODE vs. ITO WARD-5, NAMAKKAL

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