SURAMS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(2), JAIUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the merits of the case and the documents filed by the assessee. Principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte, confirming an addition of Rs. 8,78,150/- as unexplained commission income. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) order was passed without proper notice and without considering documents filed before the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence violates principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SH. SANDEP GOSAIN & DR. M. L. MEENA
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.09.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2021-22.
Surams Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee by confirming the addition of Rs.8,78,150/- made by the AO as unexplained income u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of commission income for providing accommodation entries. He contended that the ld. CIT(A) has although issued a notice but it has never been served upon the assessee to enable him to make compliance before the first appellate authority. He pleaded that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case, the certified documents filed before the AO, with the support of the notorized affidavit (APB pg. no. 16) which are vital documents for the verification of source of commission income and the same are available on the Income Tax Portal. He pleaded that the order may be set aside and restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter fresh on the merits of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee.
Per contra, the ld. DR though supported the impugned order, however, he has no objection to the request of the ld. Counsel in restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits of the case.
Surams Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 4. We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without discussing the merits of the case by observing that despite repeated notices, the appellant has not seen it fit to file any submissions, information or document during appellate proceedings and that only material on record, in this case was the Form No. 35 filed by the appellant and copy of assessment order dated 27.12.2022. He concluded that there is no material on record to interference in the order of the AO without reference to the certified documents filed by the ld. Counsel for the appellant (APB pg. nos. 1 to 15) as above claimed to be forming part of the assessment record. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have discussed the merits of the case and rebutted the disagreement if any to the appellant assessee.
In view of the principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on the issue of unexplained commission income after grating sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the material evidence available on the record and to be filed in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). We mentioned that the Bench has Surams Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and thus, the ld. CIT(A) is free to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case afresh as per law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2024
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
