SIDDHIVINAYAK ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1860/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025AY 2018-19Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to comply with hearing notices. However, considering the non-intentional non-appearance and the assessee's prior detailed submissions, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication to provide a fair opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was against an order passed by NFAC, Delhi, upholding an addition of Rs. 52,63,220/- for unexplained expenditure. The original assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with hearing notices should be set aside and the case remitted for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Hearing: 29.04.2025Pronounced: 06.05.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 19.02.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Ground No.1 stated that the impugned order is exparte and in the interest of natural justice assessee should be provided one more opportunity of hearing before ld.CIT(A) by remitting the issues raised on merits. Ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough in not opposing this request.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the impugned order is exparte as the assessee failed to make compliance on the four notices of hearing namely 06.10.2023, 31.10.2023, 06.11.2023 and 03.06.2024. We observe that the assessee has made detailed submissions before ld. AO however ld. AO made addition of Rs.52,63,220/- invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure. We also notice that non- appearance was not intentional and the assessee would not have gained from not complying with the notices of hearing. In the light of submissions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised on merits are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced on this 06th day of May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →