RAMALINGAM MANONMANI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-15(1),, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2124/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member), Shri S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the lack of compliance before the CIT(A) but accepted the assessee's plea for another opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with liberty to pass orders as per law if details are not furnished.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed these deductions for non-furnishing of details and added ₹.14,07,500/- under section 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's order ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the Assessing Officer's ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 80AB,Section 80IAC,Section 80IB,Section 80IC,Section 80IBA,Section 80ID,Section 80IE,Section 10A,Section 10AA,Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 21.10.2024Pronounced: 29.10.2024

O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee raised 8 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer exparte of the assessee.

3. We note that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny towards the claim of deduction under section 80IA/80AB/80IAC/IB/IC/IBA/ 80ID/80IE/10A/10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to furnish details with regard to the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA in the Part B and disallowed the same by holding that the assessee did not fulfil the condition for claiming said deduction. Further, an amount of ₹.14,07,500/- added to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of page 5 of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the order of the Assessing Officer in the absence of any explanation from the assessee.

4.

The ld. AR Shri N.V. Narayanan, Advocate disputed the additions and submits that the assessee is ready to furnish all relevant evidence before the ld. CIT(A) and thus, the ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to contest his case before the ld. CIT(A).

5.

The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT vehemently opposed the same.

6.

Admittedly, there was no compliance before the ld. CIT(A) as it is clear from page 5 of the impugned order. In such circumstances, accepting the submissions of the ld. AR, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee shall furnish the details in support of his claims failing which, the ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →