Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
: अपीलाथ* क- ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.N.Arjun Raj Advocate : Mr.J.Pavithran Kumar,Joint +,यथ* क- ओर से /Respondent by CIT, D.R : 19.12.2019 सुनवाई क- तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19.12.2019 घोषणा क- तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee has filed this appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Benches, Chennai (hereinafter called “ the Tribunal”) challenging the appellate order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 Chennai ( hereinafter called “the CIT(A)” ), in dated 28.02.2019 for assessment year (ay) 2014-15. The appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 23.12.2016 passed by learned Assessing Officer(hereinafter called “ the AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961(hereinafter called “the Act”).
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A), which was adjudicated by Ld.CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 28.02.2019. The Ld.CIT(A) has issued two notices to the assessee, :- 2 -: but however, the assessee did not appear before Ld.CIT(A) nor any adjournment was sought. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide appellate
order dated 28.02.2019 mainly for non-prosecution of its appeal by assessee, but however, while passing appellate order the Ld.CIT(A) simply upheld assessment
order passed by the AO without independently discussing issues/grounds on merits raised by assessee in its first appeal filed with learned CIT(A), as is required under the provisions of Sec.250(6) of the 1961 Act.
Aggrieved by an appellate order 22.11.2017 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has now filed this appeal before tribunal and arguments are advanced by both the rival parties before the Bench. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without discussing issues on merits simply for non prosecution. On being asked by the Bench, it was admitted by learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee did not appear before learned CIT(A) when the appeal was called for hearing before the learned CIT(A) nor adjournment application was filed . It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that learned CIT(A) simply upheld assessment order passed by the AO and no independent reasons were given by learned CIT(A) while upholding additions as were made by the AO in its assessment order.
The Ld.DR submitted that assessee did not appear before learned CIT(A) despite notices being sent to assessee on two occasions nor any application for adjournment was filed. The learned CIT(A) clearly specified in its last notice that it is last and final opportunity granted to the assessee. :- 3 -:
We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee is engaged in agricultural and spicing farming .
The additions were made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 1,15,322/- in the hands of assessee on account of disallowances u/s 14A of the 1961 Act. The assessee challenged and assailed the said assessment order passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act by filing first appeal before learned CIT(A). It is observed that the assessee did not appear before Ld.CIT(A) despite two opportunities granted by learned CIT(A) nor sought adjournments , but , however, Ld.CIT(A) on its part passed an appellate order without discussing issues in the appeal filed by assessee independently on merits and has , inter-alia, dismissed appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and simply upheld additions made in assessment
order passed by the AO without independently discussing all the issues/grounds in appeal filed by assessee on merits based on material on record, as is required u/s 250(6) of the 1961 Act. In our considered view, the matter needs to be restored to file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh/denovo adjudication on merits in accordance with the law. The assessee on its part is also equally responsible for its woes as it did not co-operated with learned CIT(A) in first round of litigation.
We hereby direct assessee to appear before Ld.CIT(A) and submit all necessary evidences, explanations etc., in support of its contention , when the appeal comes for hearing before Ld.CIT(A) in denovo appellate proceedings in second round of litigation. It is made clear that if the assessee still did not come forward and co-operate in denovo appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A), then Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issue’s on merits in accordance with law, based on material on record. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to denovo adjudicate appeal filed by assessee on merits in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order in exercise of its powers as are vested u/s 251(1)(a) of the :- 4 -: 1961 Act, which stipulate that learned CIT(A) can confirm, reduce , enhance or annul the assessment. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law, in denovo appellate proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on this 19th December, 2019, in Chennai. (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (र!मत कोचर) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (RAMIT KOCHAR) "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER