SHRI DAMODARAN SIVASANKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 7 (3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 512/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 November 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the CIT(A) and AO had failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and issued non-speaking orders. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte and non-speaking order of the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) also did not provide an opportunity of being heard and made additions without proper evidence. Both lower authorities' orders were found to be non-speaking.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities' orders were passed without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and were non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ (SMC

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

Hearing: 08.11.2021Pronounced: 08.11.2021

आदेश /O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order

1.

of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, in order dated 16.12.2019. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward - 7(3), Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 26.12.2018 U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee took me through the order of CIT(A) and stated that order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and a non-speaking order. When this was confronted to ld.senior Department Representative, he could not controvert the above factual situation. The ld.counsel then took me through the assessment order and read out Para 2 & 3 and stated that even the AO has not allowed opportunity of being heard and simpliciter made addition by stating that the assessee has not produced any evidence of expenses in regard to repayment of credit card bills. This fact was also confronted to ld.senior DR, but he could not controvert.

3.

After hearing both the sides and going through the orders of the lower authorities i.e., order of the CIT(A) as well as order of the AO, I noticed that orders of the lower authorities i.e., both the authorities are non-speaking and even the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte. Practically, the CIT(A) has not allowed opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When these facts were put to both the sides, both agreed that matter can be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication because in case, the matter is set aside to the file 3 of the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has to obtain report from the AO. Hence I deem it fit, in the interest of natural justice that matter be set aside to the AO. Hence, I reverse the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th November, 2021 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →