JOSEPH LAWRENCE,VELLORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 September 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity to substantiate their case, with liberty to the Assessing Officer to pass an ex-parte order if the assessee failed to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee claimed that notices were not properly served, leading to a lack of opportunity to present their case. The assessee requested an opportunity to represent their case before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied natural justice due to improper service of notices and non-prosecution of appeal. Whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in appeal No.186/CIT(A)-13/2011-12 dated 03.11.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Mr.T.Vasudevan represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by Authorised Representative of assessee that the appeal of assessee filed before the Ld.CIT(A) had been dismissed for non-prosecution. It was a submission that the assessment order giving effect to the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai had also been passed u/s.144 r.w.s 263 of the Act on 20.09.2016. It was a submission that though the notices have been said to have been issued on the assessee, it seems that the some of the notices were served on some of the employees of the assessee, which had not been received by the assessee. It was a further submission that the assessee may be granted an opportunity to represent his case before the ld. Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice.

4.

In reply, the ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and opposed the prayer of ld.A.R. It was submitted by ld.D.R that admittedly adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee and the assessee had failed to make use of the opportunities.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order dated 20.09.2016 shows that the first notice has been issued to the assessee on 28.07.2016 posting the case for hearing on 04.08.2016, and the second has been issued to the assessee on 12.09.2016 posting the case for hearing on 19.09.2016.

A perusal of order of the CIT(Appeals) shows that the appeal had been posed on five occasions and none appeared. However, considering the submissions of the ld.A.R that the assessee has all the details for explaining the additions made in the course of assessment, and considering the prayer for natural justice, the issues in the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case. If the assessee does not co-operate in the set aside proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass ex-parte order.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 11th September, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →