Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2014-15, claiming lack of adequate opportunity of being heard. The controversy stemmed from an addition of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the inability to appear before the CIT(A). Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with due opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2014-15 Prabakaran Chandru, Income Tax Officer, No.3/455, Akkaraimelathoppu Street, Ward-1, Ammaiyappankodavasal TK, Tiruvarur. Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu-613 704. [PAN: BACPC8225J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Arjunraj, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1073357655(1) dated 17.02.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 At the out the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. Attention was invited to page 2 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel submitted that the entire controversy is regarding addition of Rs.1,56,00,000/- u/s 69A made by the Ld.AO on account of unexplained cash deposits. The Ld.Counsel made a personal assurance that due compliances shall now be made and pleaded for one last opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted from para 2 of order of the Ld.CIT(A) that he has given four notices between the period 09.12.2024 to 14.01.2025. Thus, four notices were given over a span of one month and appeal dismissed for non-compliance. We have also noted that no comprehensive decision has been given on the merits of the case. We find force in the arguments of the assessee regarding its inability to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the appeal de novo after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply with the statutory notices and any non-compliance shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the Page - 2 - of 3 grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 8.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on , June-2025 at Chennai.