SUNIL KISANRAO BAGUL,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 59/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 March 2022AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of adequate opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee contended that they were not given an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) on 24-11-2021 in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer (AO), invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, made an addition of Rs.26.00 lakh treating the loan received by the assessee from Sukiba Management Services Pvt. Ltd., with maximum balance, as deemed dividend. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal.

1.

It was requested that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to present its case properly before the ld. first appellate authority so that a legally sustainable decision could be arrived at. Considering the entirety of the facts obtaining in the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly.

3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th March, 2022.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →