What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the period of ten days granted by the CIT(A) for representation was not reasonable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing.

The assessee, engaged in import and trading of toys, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of gross profit on the ground that the value of imported goods was less than shown in the books. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

Mahendra Kumar Salecha vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai

ITA No.1873/2018 :- 2 -:

(‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 14.02.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-2016.

The appeal has been filed with a delay of twenty three 2. days. The assessee filed petition requesting for condoning the delay by stating that the delay had occurred on account of appeal papers got mis-placed and delay is neither willful nor wanton and therefore prayed for condoning the delay. Ld. Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection for condoning the delay. In the circumstances, we condone the delay of twenty three days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.

The appellant is an individual deriving income from import and trading in toys. The return of income for the AY 2015-16 was filed on 17.08.2015 disclosing total income of Rs. 6,59,380/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 5(3), Chennai, vide order dated 28.09.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.10,70,216/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallow gross profit of addition of �4,10,836/- on ITA No.1873/2018 :- 3 -: the ground that value of goods imports is less than the value shown in the books of accounts.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal ex-parte after giving three opportunities.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the 5. present appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 6. record. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that assessee was granted three opportunities to represent the matter.

However, the ld. CIT(A) had given period of ten days only which in our considered opinion is not reasonable time. In the circumstances, we remit this matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.1873/2018 :- 4 -:

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly 7. allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced on 20th day of January, 2020, at Chennai.

MAHENDRA KUMAR SALECHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments