Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income admitting Rs. 40,99,810/-. The AO made additions of Rs. 1,40,50,000/- for cash deposits and Rs. 62,38,716/- under 'business'. The CIT(A) issued notices for which the assessee did not respond and passed an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and the interest of justice. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without affording proper opportunity to the assessee is sustainable? Whether principles of natural justice were followed by the lower authorities?
Sections Cited
69A, 143(3)
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) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-19, Chennai [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 28.08.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 23.12.2019.
The assessee has filed return of income admitting total income of Rs. 40,99,810/- on 21.03.2018. The A.O in the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act has made the addition cash deposit during demonetization period u/s. 69A of the Act of Rs. 1,40,5,000/- and other addition under the head “business” of Rs.62,38,716/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)
issued notices 6 notices from 26.09.2023 to 20.06.2024, but the assessee has not made any response to notices. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore, passed ex-parte by upholding the addition.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee before us has submitted that the assessee could not comply to the notices issued as the assessee has not received any communication. The Ld. AR has prayed that huge addition been made in ex parte manner so one more opportunity be provided to the assessee in the interests of justice.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities and argued that assessee has been non compliant and therefore appeal be dismissed.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of cash deposit during demonetization period of Rs.1,40,50,000/-, us/. 69A of the Act and addition under the head “business” of Rs.62,38,716/- in the ex-parte order passed as the assessee has not complied with the notices issued. The Ld. A.R has submitted that they have not received any notices and requested that one more opportunity may be given in the interests 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 Ld. CIT(A) subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 20th December, 2024.