Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ‘डी’ �यायपीठ, चे�नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूर� रामा राव, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी धु�वु� आर.एल रे�डी,�याियक सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2361/Chny/2018 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Mallika Murugan, No.21-S-W Block, Salary Ward V(2), B-Sector, ICC 8th Street. Chennai. Anna Nagar, West Extension, Chennai – 600 101. PAN: AFGPM1607J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Smt. Meera Suresh, ACA ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of hearing : 27.06.2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2019 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)-7, Chennai, (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 29.06.2018 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual, filed her return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 disclosing total income of Rs.2,03,880/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Salary Ward V(2), Chennai (hereinafter referred as ‘AO') vide order dated 31.12.2010 passed U/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.22,44,880/-. While doing so, the AO made addition on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.20,41,000/-.
Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was preferred before Ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
The Ld.AR submitted that the notice of hearing was not served on the appellant and without giving fresh opportunity, the appeal was dismissed. On the other hand, the senior DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of Para No.3.1 of the impugned order, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the case of the Ld.CIT(A) who passed the impugned order is transferred with effect from 13.04.2018 and it is Ld.CIT(A), that based on the number of opportunities granted by his predecessor, he presumed that the appellant was not interested to prosecute the appeal and accordingly even without granting another opportunity on change of incumbent, the Ld.CIT(A) had passed the order which offends the principles of natural justice and therefore we remand this matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issues in appeal in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 8th August, 2019 at Chennai.