SHRI PERUMAL BATMANADANE,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-1, PONDICHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2895/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 March 2020AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file his return of income for AY 2011-12. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings and treated cash deposits as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity by the CIT(A) and if the case should be remanded for a fresh hearing on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A/SMC ” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 21.01.2020Pronounced: 10.03.2020

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Puducherry, in dated 26.09.2019 for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Shri. S. Perumal Batmanadane, the assessee, an individual has not filed his return of income for assessment year 2011-12. During the assessment year, the assessee made cash deposits in his savings bank account. To verify the sources, the AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147 and completed the re-assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 by treating the cash deposits as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The Ld. AR pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee and pleaded that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) so that the issues are decided on merits, in the interests of justice. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) posted the case for hearing for more than two opportunities, the assessee has not filed even letters seeking adjournments. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) presumed that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the case and hence, on the basis of material available dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

Thus, he supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO.

4.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. Since the assessee has failed to pursue the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Since the assessee pleads one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues on merit, we deem it fit to remit the issues back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh examination subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee, who shall pay the same to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF). Subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/-, to the PMNRF and producing the copy of the receipt thereof before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) would post the case for hearing. The assessee shall place relevant material before the Ld. CIT(A) and actively pursue his appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A), on due examination of them and after affording due opportunity to the assessee/AO, as the case may be, shall decide the issues in accordance with law.

5.

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

Order pronounced on Tuesday, 10th March, 2020 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →