RAMALINGAM MANONMANI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-15(1),, CHENNAI
Facts
The assessee's return was selected for complete scrutiny regarding deductions under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deductions for failing to furnish details and added ₹.14,07,500/- to the total income under section 69A of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided compliance before the CIT(A). In light of the assessee's request for another opportunity and accepting the submissions of the AR, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the Assessing Officer's ex-parte order against the assessee.
Sections Cited
80IA, 80AB, 80IAC, IB, IC, IBA, 80ID, 80IE, 10A, 10AA, 69A, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
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.
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.
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).
The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT vehemently opposed the same.
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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29th October, 2024 at Chennai. (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.10.2024 Vm/- आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant, 2.""थ"/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु"/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड" फाईल/GF.
