VARADHA STEELS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2650/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 January 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, set aside the impugned order to ensure the principle of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the AO for denovo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee had inadvertently not received notices from the AO and CIT(A), thus failing to present evidence. The Revenue argued that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and the appeal should be dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, having failed to receive notices and present evidence, should be granted another opportunity for denovo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 18.12.2024Pronounced: 09.01.2025

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060210295(1) dated 29.01.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Chennai for the assessment year 2015-16 u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 11.03.2023. 2. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee has inadvertently not received the notices issued by the AO and the ld.CIT(A) hence, asessee failed to avail opportunity to file evidence and documents to substantiate its case. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

3.

Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days 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 will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld.AO whose shall proceed for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence, confirmations and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th day of January, 2025 (मनोज कुमार अ"वाल) (मनु कुमार िग"र) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे"ई Chennai: िदनांक Dated : 09-01-2025 KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant

2.

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT, Chennai. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →