Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, in dated 16.08.2017 for the AY 2010-11 and in ITA No.07/14- 15 dated 16.08.2017 for the AY 2011-12.
The only grievance in both the appeals of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to defend the appeals filed by the & 2482/Chny/2017 :- 2 -:
assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) for the AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12. Brief facts of the case are the assessee filed its return of income of Rs.7,99,150/- for the AY 2010-11 and Rs.10,15,700/- for the AY 2011-12. The return was processed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notices u/s.143(2) were issued and served on the assessee. The Ld.AR of the assessee filed the details called for and after considering the submissions of the Ld.AR, the AO had made the following additions:
For the AY 2010-11 For the AY 2011-12 Undisclosed income from house property Rs.2,26,500/- - Undisclosed interest income Rs.50,001/- Rs.12,165/- Unexplained cash deposits in Syndicate Bank Rs.36,71,245/- Rs.60,92,100 Unexplained credits in Karnataka Bank Rs.14,50,000/- Rs.23,35,000/-
Aggrieved on the above additions made by the AO, the assessee preferred the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has given several opportunities to the assessee but he failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) by himself or his representative. Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex parte order.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal.
At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to ill-health of the assessee neither the assessee nor his representative appeared before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee further submitted that he has a fair chance to succeed the cases. Hence, he pleaded for one more opportunity to defend his appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). On the other & 2482/Chny/2017 :- 3 -:
hand, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities to the assessee but he failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, confirmed the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below.
Admittedly, the Ld.CIT(A) by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del) had passed an ex parte order. Considering the submissions of the Ld.AR that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) only due to ill-health of the assessee and also in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the firm view that one more opportunity to be given to the assessee to defend his cases before the Ld.CIT(A). Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Ld.CIT(A), without asking unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 21st day of August, 2019, in Chennai.