What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was disposed of without affording an effective opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal documents were not available in the system. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed manually and the CIT(A) erred in dismissing it without affording an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording an effective opportunity to the assessee to be heard and without considering the remand report.

K.Govindarajan vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 15.10.2020Pronounced: 15.10.2020

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai in dated 31.12.2019 for the assessment year 2010-11.

Shri K.Govindarajan, the assessee, a civil contractor filed his return of income admitting a total income of Rs.8,98,240/- for the assessment year 2010-11. Subsequently filed a revised return admitting Rs.22,71,400/- as his total income. In the assessment made, the AO added the amount shown as sundry creditors at Rs.51,50,000/- and Rs.47,30,800/- representing the difference between contract receipt as shown in 26AS and the sum as admitted by the assessee in the Profit & Loss account, which was claimed to be an advance for want of confirmation letter from the assessee’s side and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal holding that “2. Although, the present appeal is reflected as pendency in the ITBA system, the Form No.35 and its enclosures are not available in the system. Further manual appeal in the prescribed format along with the requisite attachments are also not available in the appellate folder. Therefore, the present appeal cannot be proceeded with.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the reflection of pendency of this appeal in the ITBA system of the Department is thus treated as “lodged”.”

Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal pleading, inter alia, that the appeal was filed in the prescribed manual format and was numbered as ITA 35/CIT(A)-10/2013-14, the Ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, the AO issued a notice to the assessee requiring him to appear on 02.01.2019 in connection with the remand report, however the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without waiting for the remand report and thus the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not affording a final opportunity to the assessee of being heard before the appeal was adjudicated etc.

3. The case was heard through video conferencing. None appeared from the assessee’s side. The Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

We heard the Ld.DR and gone through the relevant material. It is clear from the above that the appeal was disposed without affording effective opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall direct the assessee to file proper appeal, if there is any irregularity, within a reasonable time and the assessee shall duly comply to such requirements. Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) shall direct the AO to furnish the impugned remand report within a reasonable time, furnish a copy to the assessee, if the facts and circumstances warrant, and after due opportunity to the assessee shall dispose the appeal in accordance with the law. Thus, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 15th October, 2020 at Chennai.

K.GOVINDARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments