TIRUPATI MINERALS AND INDUSTRIES,NAGPUR vs. DCIT OR ACIT DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 195/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 January 2025Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the order was ex-parte. Following principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, a firm, did not file its return of income for AY 2016-17. Following a survey, the case was re-opened, and an addition of Rs. 5,50,000 was made for unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition due to the assessee's lackadaisical approach.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and whether principles of natural justice require granting another opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 69C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Suren Dugarkar
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Captioned appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 22/02/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1) The order passed by Hon'ble CIT (appeal) is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2) The Income determined by Hon'ble CIT (appeal) at Rs.5,50,000/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 3) The Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) ought to have deleted sum of Rs.5,50,000/- being unexplained expenditure to the income of assessee.

2 Tirupati Minerals and Industries

4) The Hon'ble CIT (appeal) did not consider the submissions made by the assessee before due date against notice issued u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.02.2024. 5) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

3.

Facts in brief:– The assessee is a firm, has not filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration, as the assessee was not having any business activity during the year. Survey action under section 133A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted at the business premises of M/s. Tirupati Developers, and certain documents related to the assessee were found and impounded. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was re–opened under section 147 of the Act. The order under section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act was passed on 24/03/2022, making an addition of ` 5,50,000, on account of unexplained expenditure and same is brought to tax under section 69C of the Act.

4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) issued several statutory notices to the assessee but of no use. Due to lackadaisical approach of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) issued ex–parte order by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

3 Tirupati Minerals and Industries

2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesse, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

3. I have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/01/2025

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →