Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed seven appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2021-22. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing after the appeal was transferred to a new authority, violating principles of natural justice. The Department argued that the assessee did file written submissions.
Held
The Tribunal found that while the assessee filed written submissions, they were close to the order date, and there was no evidence of a meaningful opportunity for the assessee to present documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing a proper opportunity for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing after transfer of appeal. Whether additions were made without sufficient evidence and proper enquiry.
Sections Cited
153A, 250, 132, 132(4), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
ORDER Per Bench: These seven appeals are filed by Shri Girish Babu Durgam (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 29.11.2024 and 05/12/2024for the A.Ys 2015-16 to 2021-22. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Page 1 of 8 (A.Y 2015-16): 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Page 2 of 8 Page 3 of 8
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for Assessment Year 2015–16 under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 30.03.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the appeal of the assessee was originally pending before the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad, and pursuant to the notification issued by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax dated 15.10.2024, the same was transferred to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR emphasized that within a very short span of less than one and a half months from the transfer, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass the impugned order on 29.11.2024, dismissing the appeal without issuing any show-cause notice or without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. According to the Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT(A), before whom the appeal came for the first time after transfer, ought to have issued a notice and granted a proper opportunity of hearing. The failure to do so, according to the assessee, constitutes a clear contravention of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to para no. 3.2 of the assessment order, wherein the Ld. AO has recorded that the assessee failed to submit a valid explanation supported by substantial evidence in response to the show-cause notice issued during assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not file all relevant documents before the Ld.
Page 4 of 8 AO and therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be remitted to the file of the Ld. AO so that the assessee may furnish the complete set of documents and evidences in support of his claim. Thus, the assessee seeks a remit either to the Ld. CIT(A) or the Ld. AO, with primary emphasis on the request that an opportunity of being hear be given.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the allegation of violation of natural justice is unfounded. The Ld. DR invited our attention to para no. 5.2 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been clearly noted that the assessee filed detailed written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.11.2024. He further drew our attention to para no. 5.3 of the impugned order wherein the Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee again filed written submissions on 28.11.2024. Both these submissions have been reproduced verbatim in the body of the impugned order. The Ld. DR submitted that these submissions were filed after the transfer of the appeal to CIT(A) and therefore it cannot be alleged that the assessee did not get an opportunity of being heard. In his alternate submission, the Ld. DR contended that if the Tribunal is inclined to remand the matter, it may be more appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. AO rather than the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and considered the material available on record. We find that the assessee has specifically raised the grievance that after the transfer of his appeal from Ld. CIT(A)-11 to Ld. CIT(A) pursuant to the Page 5 of 8 notification dated 15.10.2024, no independent show-cause notice or hearing was granted by the newly assigned appellate authority. The assessee has further explained that certain documents could not be produced before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, and that the failure to consider such documents has caused prejudice. On the other hand, the Department has pointed out that the assessee did in fact file written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.11.2024 and again on 28.11.2024, both of which have been taken on record and reproduced in the impugned order. In our considered view, although written submissions were filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the fact remains that these were filed in very close proximity to the passing of the impugned order, and there is nothing on record to show that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued any prior notice of hearing or had afforded a meaningful opportunity to the assessee to present his documents, evidences, and explanations in support of his appeal. The appellate proceedings, being quasi-judicial in nature, require adherence to the principles of natural justice. The assessee has also stated that certain relevant documents were not furnished before the Ld. AO and that those documents go to the root of the matter. We are therefore of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication of the issue with a direction to provide one more effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all relevant evidences and written submissions in support of his claim. At the Page 6 of 8 same time, we direct the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate fully in the proceedings before the Ld. AO.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. to 19/Hyd/2025: 8. The issue involved in all these appeals are identical to the issue involved in ITA No.13/Hyd/2025. Therefore, our discussion and finding in shall mutatis mutandis apply to all these appeals also. Accordingly, issue involved in all these appeals are also set aside to the file of the Ld. AO in terms of our direction in ITA No.13/Hyd/2025.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in to 19/Hyd/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.