What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the cash book was not produced before the AO or CIT(A). Considering the interest of natural justice and the admitted absence of representation before the CIT(A), the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was heard. The assessee's representative submitted that all details were provided to the AO, but an addition was made without considering them. The assessee was not represented before the CIT(A) due to the representative's illness.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied natural justice due to non-representation before the CIT(A) and if the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of evidence.

Kamal Kishore Usha Rani vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

आदेश / O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai in appeal No.154/CIT(A)-2/2017-18 dated 23.08.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16.

Shri Mahaveer Chand Jain represented on behalf of the Assessee and Smt.Vijya Prabha represented on behalf of the Revenue

It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that in the course of assessment, all the details had been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was a submission that however, the Assessing Officer, without considering the evidences produced, made the addition of ₹.27.11 lakhs. It was submitted by Ld. A.R. that before the learned CIT(A), admittedly the assessee was not represented because Shri Mahaveer Chand Jain, Auditor, Authorized Representative of the assessee, was not well and was undergoing substantially longer medical treatment. It was a prayer that the assessee may be granted an opportunity to represent her matters before the learned C.I.T(A).

In reply, the Ld. D.R. vehemently opposed the submissions of the AR.

It was submitted by the Ld.D.R that the cash book and the details had not been produced before the A.O., nor before the learned CIT(A). It was a further submission that if the cash book is to be considered, then the same must be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

I have considered the rival submissions through Video Conferencing and perused the materials available on record. The submissions made by the ld. D.R holds substantial weight, in so far as, though the A.O. talks of asking the assessee to produce the cash book, he further records that the ld. A.R had not produced the cash book.

The assessee also submits that the cash book was produced during the course of assessment proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has not been represented before the learned CIT(A). In this circumstance, in the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and I do so.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 15th June, 2020 at Chennai.

KAMAL KISHORE USHA RANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-2, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments