Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 760/CHNY/2020 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Moolchand Preethi, The DCIT, No.14, 2nd Floor, Church Colony, v. Circle 1(1), 3rd Street, Allithurai Rd, Trichy Trichy – 620 001. PAN: APCPP 0905J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : None ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy in dated 06.05.2020. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Circle 3(1), Trichy u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 28.12.2018.
2 2. At the outset, the ld.CIT-DR Shri Guru Bashyam, drew our attention to the following grounds raised by assessee i.e, Ground Nos.2, 3 & 4:-
2. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-1 erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without giving the Appellant satisfactory opportunity to contest the claims.
The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-1 knowing that the Appellant had not been receiving the notices and had left her premises, did not bother sending emails or any other mode of communication and after mere 2 notices dismissed the case of the Appellant.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-1 erred in not giving the Appellant an opportunity to examine and counter the remand report, making the order of the Learned CIT against the principles of Natural Justice and Audi Altern Partem.
and then, he took us through the findings recorded by CIT(A) as under:- 3.2 As can be seen, assessee has not substantiated payment of VAT @1%, which has been claimed by her AR as part explanation of the differential in the turnover.
4. Assessee has not furnished reply to the remand report and has not availed of any opportunity to furnish any documentary evidence for the reconciliation of bank credits with the turnover shown in the books of account. Hence, even on the merits, the appeal of assessee is found wanting and the same is hence DISMISSED.
The ld.CIT-DR stated that the assessee being non-cooperative, the CIT(A) has rightly passed ex-parte order. But, when a query was 3 put to him, whether the CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue, he could not support the same.
3. After hearing ld.CIT-DR and going through the facts, we noted that even the remand report submitted by the AO was not confronted to the assessee and the CIT(A)’s order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2022 at Chennai.