What did the Tribunal hold?

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

The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for cash deposits in bank accounts during assessment. Despite remand proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the remand report, leading to the confirmation of the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and whether the principle of natural justice was followed.

Kailash Chowdhry vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

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

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR, Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

For Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22-12-2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement 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)-2, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 16-12-2019 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 of the Act on 30-06-2016. One of the grounds raised by the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

KAILASH CHOWDHRY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-1(4), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments