M.A.VENKAT,CHENNAI vs. ITO NO CORPORATE WARD-8(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2529/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 November 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reply was filed before the predecessor CIT(A) and was not considered by the successor. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) who also enhanced the assessed income. The assessee contended that a reply to the show-cause notice was filed but not considered by the successor CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's filed reply to the show-cause notice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 26.11.2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) in dated 24.06.2019 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2 -: 2. Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed ex-parte and has also enhanced the assessed income. It was a submission that the learned CIT(A) had held that the assessee has not furnished any details or documentary evidences nor responded to the show-cause notice issued.

It is a submission that the written submissions has been filed on 27.01.2016 before the predecessor CIT(A) and he produced acknowledgement of the same. It was a submission that the successor CIT(A) could have missed the replies filed by the assessee. It was a submission that the issues in the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

In reply, the learned Departmental Representative did not raise any 4. serious objection.

5.

We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.

6.

It is noticed that the assessee has filed a reply to the show-cause notice issued by the learned CIT(A). The show-cause notice has been issued on 08.01.2016 and the reply is seen to be filed on 27.01.2016. It is noticed that 3 -: the said reply has not been considered by the learned CIT(A). In the circumstances and in the interest natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th November, 2019 in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →