BADRINARYANAN ANANDAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2016/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 March 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for default. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.3,42,19,222/- on account of capital gains on sale of land and building. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, and the CIT(A) sustained the addition without proper examination.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without proper examination and whether the appeal should have been dismissed for default.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 02.03.2022Pronounced: 03.03.2022

आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM:

1.

This appeal of the Assessee is arising out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in dated 27.02.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013 - 2014 against the Assessment Order made u/s.143(3) dated 29.03.2016 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), passed by the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward – 4(1), Chennai.

2.

None appeared before us representing the Assessee while Shri.

G. Johnson, Senior Departmental Representative represented the Department.

3.

On perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we note that none appeared to represent the Assessee in the first appeal. It is also observed that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) provided several opportunities of hearing to the Assessee to represent his case. The Assessee failed to avail such opportunities and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) proceeded to adjudicate the matter based on the information on record.

4.

The facts briefly stated are that the Assessing Officer re-worked the capital gain arising to the Assessee on the sale of land and building in Chennai and made an addition of Rs.3,42,19,222/-. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while adjudicating the matter, merely reproduced the statement of facts and grounds of the appeal and sustained the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer without examination and application of mind. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any submissions made by the Assessee, we are inclined to set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the matter back to him for de novo adjudication in the interest of justice

:: 3 :: and fair-play. It may be noted that unless the statute authorizes a quasi-judicial authority to dismiss an appeal for default, expressively or by inevitable implication, the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merit and not to dismiss it for default.

5.

Accordingly, we hold that the matter is to be adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) afresh by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to avail the opportunity and to attend the hearing by making his submission for the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 3rd March, 2022 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →