SHRI SAMSUDEEN BASHEER,RAMANATHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAMANATHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 624/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 March 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was filed with a delay, which was condoned. The assessment was framed under section 144 on a best judgment basis due to non-furnishing of requisite evidences by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities despite past negligence, and the validity of a best judgment assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) – Ld. AR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai [CIT(A)] dated 05-03-2020 in the matter of 2 - assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Act on 29-12-2017.

2.

The Registry has noted a delay of 27 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee om the strength of condonation petition dated 25-02-2022 which is accompanied by the affidavit of the assessee. The delay has been attributed to the fact that due to corona restrictions, the assessee could not hand over the papers to the concerned Advocate. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation, however, keeping in view the contents of condonation petition as well as considering the period of delay, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessment has been framed on best judgment basis u/s 144 since the assessee did not furnish requisite evidences / explanation. Accordingly, the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.37.28 Lacs as well as another addition of Rs.205 Lacs.

4.

Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, none appeared for assessee during appellate proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities of being heard as noted in the impugned order. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR sought another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, pleaded for dismissal of the appeal 5. After careful consideration of material facts, though we concur with the submissions of the revenue that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the proceedings before lower authorities, however, keeping in view the principle of natural justice and keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a resident individual, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate his case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose-off the appeal on the basis of material on record by way of speaking order.

6.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 23rd March, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →