KRISHNAN GOPIKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(3),, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1968/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO issued only two notices before making additions, and the assessee pleaded violation of natural justice. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which was passed ex parte. The assessee's contention was that the notices from the AO were sent to an inactive email ID, leading to non-receipt and thus inability to respond. This resulted in an ex parte assessment order from the AO as well.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case and without proper notice to the assessee are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 24.09.2024Pronounced: 04.12.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 10.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte qua the assessee without going into the merits of the case. He also pointed out that the AO has also passed an ex parte order qua assessee since the assessee didn’t respond two of his notices on 12.03.2018 & 06.09.2018 because it was sent to inactive e-mail ID. According to the Ld.AR, because statuary notices were forwarded to inactive e-mail ID, the assessee didn’t receive any notice of hearing from the Office of the AO, which prevented the assessee from responding/filing the relevant documents to substantiate the nature & source of the cash deposits during the demonetization period and as well as other documents called for by the AO. The Ld.AR relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co.

1.

v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) prays that since its case falls squarely as per the said decisions, the assessee may be given an opportunity before the AO.

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

4.

Be that as it may, it is noted that the AO has only issued two notices (supra) before making addition of Rs.24,74,680/- which included addition made u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.14,56,000/- as well as addition of Rs.10,56,000/- and since, the assessee pleads violation of natural justice, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee and therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the (AY 2017-18) Mr. Krishnan Gopikrishnan AO with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR is directed to file relevant documents/written submissions and the AO to pass order in accordance to law.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →