MR.RODI LAL BANJARA,CHITTORGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTORGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 412/JODH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 April 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to potential violations of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was dismissed. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 56,79,779/-. The assessee did not appear before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: SHRI N.K.SAINI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Amit Babel, CA
For Respondent: DR Assessee By None (Written submissions of Shri Amit Babel, CA
Hearing: 30.04.2019

PER N. K. SAINI, V.P.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2017 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-

1.

The Ld. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-2, Chttorgarh has erred in treating the cash sales deposited in the bank, as income form undisclosed sources. The deposit represents the sale proceeds’. Hence, the addition is unjust, unreasonable and unwarranted. The addition made should be deleted and / or the order passed u/s 143 / 144 should be set aside as proper opportunities ware not given to the assessee. the penalty order imposed u/s 271 (1) (c)should be quashed.

2.

The CIT(A)-1, Udaipur has also erred in not considering the facts of reply submitted and dismissed the appeal of your appellant.

3.

Your appellant should be allowed to add, amend or delete any ground or ground of appeal.

3.

During the course of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee and adjournment letter has been filed stating therein that either

the case may be adjourned or ex-parte order passed by the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside.

4.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.9.2011 declaring an income Rs. 2,39,180/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed the ex-

parte order u/s 144 of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 56,79,779/-.

5.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal by passing the impugned order ex-parte. Now the assessee is in appeal.

6.

The Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities

below and further submitted that the assessee neither appeared before

the Assessing Officer nor Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer was rightly

sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

7.

We have considered the submissions for Ld. Sr. DR and perused

the material available on record. In the present case, the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) mentioned that most of the time

when the case was fixed for hearing, neither anybody attended not any application for adjournment was filed. It has been mentioned that the notice was issued on 6.1.2017 for the hearing on 24.1.2017 which returned back. In the present case, no comments of the postman have been mentioned although it is stated at page 4 of the impugned order

that the comments for the postman were as under:-

‘…….’ But noting is mentioned that what were the comments of the postman as the space has been shown blank. It is also not clear as to whether any effort was made to serve the notice of hearing on the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

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

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 30..04.2019) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) Vice President Dated :. 04.2019 “आर.के.” आदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)

5.

"वभागीय""त"न"ध, आयकरअपील!यआ"धकरण, च$डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 6. गाड'फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order सहायकपंजीकार/

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →