What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting adequate opportunity.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee claimed a cash deposit addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- was made without proper consideration of documentary evidence. The assessee requested the matter be set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting sufficient opportunity and in affirming the addition without considering documentary evidence.

Narender Rao, Gurgaon vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 06.12.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- 1.) That the appellant got an mishappening on fixed date, so he could not appear on the fixed ate. Hence the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The non appearance of the appellant is not intentionally, but the reason mentioned above. 2.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the addition amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of cash deposit with bank. It was duly submitted with documentary evidence during the course of assessment proceedings that cash deposit is out of a/c withdrawal. Also duly computed in cash flow statement. 3.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in creating illegal demand, in strangulation of principles of natural justice and ignoring relevant material available on record returning perverse findings. 4.) That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind supplement or alter any of the grounds stated herein above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

In this case Sh. Narender Rao, Appellant/Assessee himself appeared before the Bench and stated that Ld. First Appellate Authority has not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his claim in producing the necessary evidences. Hence, he requested that this matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and decide on merit, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He also undertakes that he will not take any unnecessary adjournment and will appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on whichever date fixed by the Bench.

On the other hand, Ld. DR has not raised objection to the request of the Assessee.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. After perusing the relevant records available with me alongwith the orders of the revenue authorities, I am of the considered view that Ld.

CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee in substantiating his claim. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesse. The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.11.2018 at 10.00 AM and will remain cooperative in the proceedings and not to take any unnecessary adjournment. There is no need to issue notice, because this order has been pronounced in the Open Court and the Assessee himself has noted the date of appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) on the Order Sheet itself.

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30-10-2018.

NARENDER RAO,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GURGAON

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