SRI ARUMUGA COTTSPIN PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. CIT(A)-19, COIMBATORE`

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 February 2022AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and substantiate its claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) primarily due to non-appearance, leading to the confirmation of additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to attend appellate proceedings despite opportunities. The additions included suppression of sales and amounts under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-appearance without a speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld. AR, Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR

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

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 29-11-2019 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30-12-2018.

2 - 2. The assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal as well as certain additional grounds of appeal. During hearing, Ld. AR, drawing our attention to the impugned order, submitted that the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed primarily for non-appearance and the additions have been confirmed by non-speaking order. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee failed to appear before the appellate authority as is evident from para-5 of the impugned order and the assessee’s own negligence has resulted into the confirmation of the assessment order.

3. Having heard rival submissions and after going through the orders of lower authorities, our adjudication would be as under.

4. The assessee has been assessed u/s. 143(3) on 30-12-2018 wherein the total income has been determined at Rs. 810.80 Lacs after certain addition of suppression of sales as well as certain addition u/s 68. Though the assessee preferred further appeal before Ld. CIT(A), however, it failed to attend the appellate proceedings despite being provided with various opportunities of being heard. Consequently, the assessment order was confirmed primarily for non-appearance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

5. We are of the considered opinion that though the assessee has remained negligent in attending the appellate proceedings, however, keeping in view the principal of natural justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication by way of speaking order. Adequate opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the assessee and the assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its claim failing which Ld.

CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appeal on the basis of material on record. 6. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 09th February, 2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →