Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a Section 12A registered society, filed its return for AY 2020-21 declaring Rs. 46,100/-, but the CPC processed it at Rs. 25,48,381/- citing a delay in filing the return under Section 139(1) and failure to file Form 10B. The CIT(A) confirmed this action through an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, having provided only a single opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, ensuring the appellant is granted a proper opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the ex-parte order.
Sections Cited
12A, 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2020-21 Young Women's Christian Association .......... Appellant Kozhencherry P.O., Pathanamthitta 689641 [PAN: AAAAY3019Q] vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thiruvalla Appellant by: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.01.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 03.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It is also duly registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The appellant filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 31.05.2021 declaring income of Rs. 46,100/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC vide intimation dated 30.11.2021 at a total income of Rs. 25,48,381/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to file the
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO, while passing the exparte order.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before me in the present appeal.
I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From para 4 of the order passed by the CIT(A) it is clear that the CIT(A) had provided only one opportunity to represent the matter. Therefore, it is evident that the CIT(A) had not afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity to represent the matter before him. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.