Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed returns for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. A search conducted in a related entity led to the issuance of notices under section 153C. The Assessing Officer completed the assessments based on material seized and information provided.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the written submissions and documentary evidence from the assessee, as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity previously.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity by the CIT(A) leading to an ex-parte order, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
250, 132, 153C, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDYAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE-PRESIDENT:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 18, Chennai both dated 19.08.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Common issues are raised in both the appeals, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. The & 2308/Chny/2024 solitary issue argued on merits is with regard to the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 admitting total income of ₹.29,69,990/-. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee filed its return on 07.11.2017 admitting income of ₹.31,21,160/-. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was conducted in the case of M/s. Baalakh Holdings Group and the residential premises of Shri R.V. Raajah, who is one of the director of the assessee company [M/s. Lakkna Housing Private Ltd.]. During the search, loose sheets and a pen drive seized from the premises belong to the assessee. The material seized in case of Shri R.V. Raajah, who is the director of the company have got a bearing on the determination of the income of the assessee company. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153C of the Act requiring the assessee to file return of income for both the assessment years. Vide letter dated 06.12.2019, the assessee requested to treat the original return of income as filed in response to the notice under section 153C of the Act. After verifying the details given by the assessee and based on the verification of books of accounts and other documents furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and determined the income of the assessee at ₹.3,00,08,890/- and & 2308/Chny/2024 ₹.1,31,21,158/- for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively after making various additions.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years under consideration. Since there was no response to the hearing notices from the assessee and could not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to the circumstances beyond its control, the assessee could not furnish detailed explanation/documentary evidence before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, he prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue its case before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not respond to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We note that the assessee has not respond to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We also note that in the absence of written submissions & 2308/Chny/2024 supported by documentary evidence to have a fair adjudication, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee is also directed to furnish proper explanation with documentary evidences to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) without fail, otherwise, the order of the ld. CIT(A) stands sustained. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years under consideration.
In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th March, 2025 at Chennai. (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (धु"वु" आर.एल रे"ी) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा"" /VICE PRESIDENT चे"ई/Chennai,"दनांक/Date: 28.03.2025 Vm/- & 2308/Chny/2024