MUTHUSWAMY ARUMUGHAM,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(3), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2665/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed (for statistical purpose)

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the Ld. AO for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to submit all necessary evidence to the Ld. AO for a fresh hearing and determination on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges an order from the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, arising from an assessment framed under Section 143(3). The assessee's counsel claimed insufficient time to submit evidence, while the Departmental Representative contended that the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices from both the AO and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity to present their case, warranting setting aside the assessment order for a de novo assessment based on principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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: 18.12.2024

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/250/2024-25/106917888 (1) dated 27.09.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 4(5) Coimbatore for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 28.12.2019. 2. We heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) explanation. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative stated the ld. AO had issued several notices and further the ld. CIT(A) issued fourteen notices and the assessee did not respond. Hence, he argued that 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 and for better acquitance on merits 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, Coimbatore 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →