Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed that the details furnished were not considered by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had been negligent but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant another opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to present material evidence and whether the CIT(A) considered all the details furnished by the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
(िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mrs. Rathese Josphin Amala Jaya ITO बनाम/ 57/1, East Mada Street, Koyembedu Non-Corporate Ward-17(6), Vs. Chennai-600 107. Chennai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AOEPJ-5605-C (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. S. Mathangi (Advocate)– Ld. AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 06-08-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 08-12-2023. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made various additions to the returned income and assessed the income at Rs.117.01 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for want of material evidences from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the details furnished by the assessee were not considered by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.
Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and accepting the prayer of Ld. AR, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case.