M/S OPEN TERRACE REALTORS LLP,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 526/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 October 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done in the interest of natural justice to allow the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee's representative claimed they were unable to make a proper representation due to prior commitments and sought adjournments which were not granted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN

For Appellant: Shri K. Chengal Raydu, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Hearing: 21.10.2021Pronounced: 21.10.2021

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of unexplained expenditure made by the AO.

2.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs.49.98 lakhs u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The assessee challenged the same by filing appeal before Ld.

OPEN Terrace Realtors LLP, Bangalore

Page 2 of 3 CIT(A). The case was posted for hearing on 27.9.2018. The Ld. A.R. submitted that he was busy in tax audit at that point of time and hence sent his assistant to seek adjournment. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) posted the appeal for hearing by giving adjournment for short period. He submitted that he sent his juniors to seek adjournment from time to time, yet the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee could not make proper representation before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

3.

We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record. Having regard to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed order without hearing the assessee, and having regard to the submissions made by Ld. A.R. before us, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the entire issues urged before us should be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore all issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to co-operate with the Ld. CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Oct, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (George George K.) (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 21st Oct, 2021. VG/SPS

OPEN Terrace Realtors LLP, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 69C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →