MOHANAN NAIR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 7 (4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 652/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 August 2018AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was given multiple opportunities to appear before the CIT(A) but failed to do so, citing reasons beyond their control. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was heard. The assessee claimed that additions made by the AO were explainable and that they were not given a fair chance to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a fair opportunity to present their case, and if a further opportunity should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]

For Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

In this appeal filed by the assessee, which is directed against an order dated 20.12.2017 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided ex-parte.

ITA No.652 /2018 :- 2 -:

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that various additions made by the ld. AO were upheld by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without giving a fair chance to the assessee to present his case. According to the ld. Authorised Representative, additions of �1,75,000/-, 4,06,938 and �4,32,170/- were all explainable and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) could not have been invoked.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that despite 3. giving number of opportunities, assessee did not enter appearance.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 4. orders of the authorities below. Para 5 to 7 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order is reproduced hereunder:-

‘’5. The records indicate that the dates of hearing were fixed on various dates as below:-

Sl.No Date of Status Hearing 1 06.05.2016 Adjournment sought 2 30.06.2016 Adjournment sought 3 20.07.2016 Adjournment sought 4 08.12.2017 Acknowledgement placed on record none appeared.

6.

Till the date of passing this order i.e. 20.12.2017, there is neither a request for adjournment nor has anyone

ITA No.652 /2018 :- 3 -: appeared on appellant’s behalf, nor is there a written submission, by the appellant in support of his case.

7.

In the absence of any material to contradict the findings of the ld. Assessing Officer, I find no reason to interfere with the Assessing Officer’s order’’.

Assessee had assailed the additions made for unexplained cash credits of �1,75,000/-, �4,06,938/- and unexplained investment of �4,32,170/-, before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We find that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did give the assessee four chance to enter appearance. However in three instances atleast, adjournment letters were filed. Now submission of ld. Authorised Representative is that assessee could not enter appearance due to reasons beyond his control and should be given one more opportunity to explain his case. Ld. Authorised Representative has also given an undertaking before the Bench that if one more opportunity is given, assessee would certainly enter appearance before ld.CIT(A). In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that assessee could be given one more opportunity to substantiate its grounds by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

We set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the case back to his file for consideration afresh in accordance with law.

ITA No.652 /2018 :- 4 -:

5.

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

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 7th day of August, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →