Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai in dated 06.01.2020. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 9(3), Chennai
U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide order dated 28.12.2016.
At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the AO is an ex-parte order and also non-speaking. He further submitted that the AO has neither accepted nor rejected the evidences submitted vide his letter dated 24.10.2016. Secondly when the appeal was taken up by CIT(A), the CIT(A) decided the appeal by issuing 6 opportunities, as the assessee has requested for adjournment dismissed the appeal simpliciter for default and not discussed anything on merits. As the orders of the lower authorities are ex-parte and without providing opportunity of hearing, the assessee now before us has raised the grounds of violation of natural justice as under:- “A. For that the order(s) of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 10 [CIT-A (10] and Ld.AO are erroneous ignoring and brushing aside the facts and merits of the case of the Appellant disregarding the evidences relied on the Appellant. B. For that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non appearance without considering the merits of the case of the Appellant assuming that the details submitted before the Ld.AO was not adequate or conclusive to establish the sources of deposit of cash into the Bank account as per the Assessment order of the Ld.AO. C. The Ld.AO failed appreciate the fact that the cash deposits were out of the cash drawings from the bank accounts maintained by the Appellant. The Ld.AO went ahead by mere suspicion the amounts are from unexplained sources invoking the provisions of section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961, which is a surmise or conjecture. D. That the AO had decided the case of Appellant with the observation that the appellant or AR did not appear, does not alter the records
CBDT Circular No.14(XL-34) dated 11.04.1955 is binding on the AO for applying the provisions even if the Appellant is not present with the available materials on record. E. The CIT(A) did not follow the observation of the Ld.AO without going through the evidences submitted before the Ld.AO and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution is against the principles of natural justice.
When these facts were confronted to ld. senior Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the same.
After hearing both the sides and going through the records, we set aside the orders of lower authorities i.e., ex-parte orders and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2022 at Chennai.