SAICARE INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunities to represent its case. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, but due to the Managing Director's hospitalization, complete details could not be provided. The assessment was completed ex-parte, and the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order confirming the additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai dated 28.02.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. Besides challenging the confirmation of addition in the grounds of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has mainly challenged the ex-parte appellate order.
The above appeal is filed with a delay of 27 days, for which, the assessee has filed a petition in support of an affidavit for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection.
Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of 27 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 declaring an income of ₹.1,01,86,350/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short] was issued and served on the assessee. Since the AR of the assessee could file only part of the details called for as the Managing Director of the assessee company was hospitalized, the assessment was completed on the basis of materials available on record and based on the information gathered during a survey under section 133A of the Act conducted at the business premises of the assessee under section 143(3) of the Act by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,84,95,365/- after making addition. On appeal, since there was no representation from the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) concluded the appellate order by confirming the addition.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the assessee could not produce complete details due to non-availability of M.D. of the assessee company on medical grounds; the assessment order itself is an exparte order. It was further submission, that since the assessee was not given sufficient opportunities of being heard during the course of appeal proceedings, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for suitable directions.
Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not furnish any evidence to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer. It was further submission that the assessee kept on seeking adjournment and therefore, the appeals has to be decided on merits. Despite notice of final hearing was duly served by post as well as by email, the assessee neither appeared nor furnished written submissions with supporting documents before the ld. CIT(A) and thus, pleaded for confirming the appellate order.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. As it is stated in the assessment order that the AR could file only part of the details called for as the Managing Director was hospitalized and also due to few other reasons, and based on the survey under section 133A of the Act, the Assessing Officer worked out the gross receipts on the details gathered during survey and completed the assessment without any explanations from the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that final opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file the information was given on 22.02.2019 and it was duly served by post as well as by email. But, the assessee neither appeared nor furnished written submissions with supporting documents. However, no details of opportunities given to the assessee to represent the case are available in the appellate order. In the absence of any detailed reply from the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) concluded the appellate order with the available materials on record and confirmed the addition. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard to represent its case. Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order and direct the ld. CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent the case and thereafter conclude the appellate order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file complete details before the ld. CIT(A).
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026