SMT. SANGEETHA VIJOY ARORA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 9 (3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 517/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, finding them to be ex-parte and in violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for default without considering the merits. The original assessment order by the AO was also ex-parte and non-speaking, failing to address the evidence submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without proper adjudication on merits and considering the evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 13.06.2022Pronounced: 15.06.2022

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

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

When these facts were confronted to ld. senior Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the same.

4.

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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →