RAMSWROOP AGARWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 418/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 January 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee filing a reply. To uphold the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) sustaining an addition of Rs. 31,78,33,340/- towards alleged bogus purchases. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order despite a reply being filed and requested a simultaneous hearing of appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's submissions and whether the addition for bogus purchases was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Date of Hearing – 11/12/2024 Date of Order – 08/01/2025

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

The appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 24/05/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. Whether on the facts and in law, the order passed by learned CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO of Rs.31,78,33,340/- towards alleged bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act.

2 Ramswroop Agarwal

3.

Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had furnished a reply on 13/05/2024 thereby, requesting to keep the appeal proceedings in abeyance since, an appeal against reassessment order on similar issue for same year, was pending before learned CIT(A). That the assessee had requested learned CIT(A) to hear both appeals simultaneously.

4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex- parte order despite response filed by the assessee.

5.

The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.”

3. 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).

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 both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through 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

3 Ramswroop Agarwal 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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →