What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer made significant additions for unexplained cash, investment, and capital gains. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without condoning a 32-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper hearing and condoning the delay. Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Murugesan Saravanan vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]

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)-15, Chennai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 28.12.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015.

ITA No. 511 /2019 :- 2 -:

The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.

The appellant is an individual deriving income under the head ‘’Salary’’. The return of income for the Asst. Year 2014-15 was filed on 21.09.2015 disclosing total income of � 1,92,850/-.

Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 18(1), Chennai vide order dated 07.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of �81,65,288/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made additions in respect of unexplained cash deposited in UCO Bank to the tune of �13,96,500/-, unexplained investment of �51,85,535/- and long term capital gains of �12,90,405/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), 3. who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant 4. is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 5. record. It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) had not granted sufficient

ITA No. 511 /2019 :- 3 -: and reasonable opportunity of being heard while disposing the appeal.

Submissions made by the assessee has not been controverted by the ld. Departmental Representative. In the circumstances, we remit the issue back to the file of the 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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly 6. allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 21st day of October, 2019, at Chennai.

MURUGESAN SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 18(1), 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