REKHA MUSADDY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the case on merits and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice and in view of the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in the business of trading earth moving equipment, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte without discussing the case on merits. The Assessing Officer (AO) had completed the assessment based on various additions including net value of property, unsecured loans, and disallowance of interest.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 02.09.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of earth moving equipments and spares and iron and steel in the name of Ayush Earthmovers. The A.O has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act estimating the annual net value of property assessed at Rs. 34,80,000/-, addition on unsecured loans u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 15,00,000/-, unexplained credits of Rs. 2,50,000/- and interest on unsecured loans of Rs. 4,28,725/-, and interest disallowance of Rs. 39,04,542/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex- parte without discussing the case on merits.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee before us has submitted the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without discussing the case on merits and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and requested to provide one more opportunity to substantiate his case.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without discussing the case on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that the assessee is not in a position to submit documents in support of his case. The Ld. AR before us has submitted that all the material available to substantiate their claim and therefore, one more opportunity should be provided to substantiate her case in the interest of justice. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 20th December, 2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026