Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ 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)-10, Chennai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 30.04.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-2013.
ITA No.1868 /2019 :- 2 -:
The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
‘’1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -10, Chennai dated 30.04.2019 in l.T.A.No.12118-I9ICIT(A)-10 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as time barred by limitation for the reasons morefully captured from para 51 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification and ought to have appreciated that the non consideration of the reasons adduced for the belated filing of the appeal by 149 days properly would vitiate the related findings in the impugned order.
3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the action in not condoning the delay of 149 days in filing the first appeal was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that as a consequence the non adjudication of the issues raised forming part of the statutory Form No.35 was wholly unjustified and ought to have appreciated that the non consideration of issues on merits would violate the principles of legitimate expectation.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.
The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing’’.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The appellant is an individual deriving income under the head ‘’income from other sources’’. The return of income for the AY 2012-
ITA No.1868 /2019 :- 3 -:
13 was filed on 01.03.2014 declaring Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 13(5), Chennai vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs. 7,90,952/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer found that assessee made cash deposits in saving bank account in Indian Bank, Madipakkam Branch, Chennai. Despite opportunities given to explain the source for the cash deposits, assessee had not offered any explanation in the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making addition of �7,49,000/- as unexplained cash deposits.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), 4. who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal.
Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant 5. is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 6. record. It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) had not granted sufficient 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 ITA No.1868 /2019 :- 4 -: 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 7. allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 13th day of September, 2019, at Chennai.