MANJU DEVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3465/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 December 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue afresh. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the department.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of being heard before the appellate authority. The validity of the disallowance of exemption under section 10(38).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

Hearing: 19.10.2020Pronounced: 04.12.2020

O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, dated 10.10.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is with regard to the confirmation of disallowance of exemption claimed of ₹.4,97,269/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 22.09.2013 declaring total income of ₹. 4,14,490/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by serving notice under section 148 of the Act. After considering the details filed against statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 147 of the Act was completed by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹. 9,61,140/- after making addition of ₹.5,46,650/- under section 68 of the Act by denying the claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. On appeal, since the assessee could not responded/ represented his case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, at the request of the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 19.10.2020. However, on 19.10.2020, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case when the appeal was taken up for hearing. Hence we proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.

4.

We have heard the ld. DR through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order in para 4, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that during the course of appellate proceedings, inspite of repeated opportunities provided, the assessee neither appeared nor filed written submissions to substantiate its grounds of appeal made. But, no details of notice(s) issued to the assessee were brought on record. In view of the above, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Department in finalizing the appeal without fail.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th December, 2020 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →