S.UMASANKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2096/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 March 2020AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was provided substantial opportunities but showed non-cooperation. However, to uphold natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order for violation of natural justice, as they failed to produce requested evidence. The CIT(A) had confirmed additions due to this non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order violated principles of natural justice by confirming additions without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 12.03.2020Pronounced: 12.03.2020

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai in dated 24.04.2018 for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2.

None represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

2 -: 3. It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that in Ground No.1, the assessee has challenged the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for violation of natural justice. It was a submission that the assessee had not produced the evidences as called for. The learned Departmental Representative drew attention to the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at para- 13, wherein details had been called for but the same was not produced. It was a submission that it is only in the absence of the evidences, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was compelled to confirm the addition.

4.

I have considered the submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5.

A perusal of para-12, 13 and 14 of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) clearly shows that the Authorized Representative has been asked to produce the ledger accounts of the assessee reflecting in the books of accounts of the company for the subsequent years until the loan was refunded by him to the company. He was also required to file the Income Tax Returns [ITR] along with the Financials of the company for the relevant period and for the subsequent years. None of these details have been filed.

3 -: 6. A perusal of para-9 of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that substantial opportunities have been provided to the assessee. There has been absolute non-cooperation. However, considering the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that the assessee must be granted another opportunity to substantiate his case. Consequently, the issues in the file are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th March, 2020 in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →