Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal on merits despite multiple notices. The assessee's original return declared an income of Rs. 4,85,200/-. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 5,75,000/- as unexplained cash deposits taxed under section 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition and decided to set aside the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was provided proper opportunity of hearing before the lower appellate authority and if the appeal should be set aside for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
[PAN: AAVPS 8503P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : None ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jaipur in Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1061280623 (1), dated 21.02.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax officer, Non Corporate Ward 17(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 19.12.2019.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual had filed the original return of income on 09/03/2018 declaring a total income of Rs.4,85,200/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and an order under sec.143 of the Act was passed on 19/12/2019, while doing so the learned Assessing Officer had added a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- being the difference in cash deposits during financial year 2016-17 and the amount received by RTGS from the receivables of the assessee. to the total income and the same being taxed at special rate @ 60 percent under sec. 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits, although assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) despite five notices issued. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee has requested for adjournment vide letter dated 18th October, 2024. On the other hand, ld.Addl.CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
At the outset, we reject the adjournment petition dated 18.10.2024 filed by the Counsel and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity of hearing before ld.CIT(A) to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) who shall proceed for denovo adjudication of appeal after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appellate proceedings as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of October, 2024 at Chennai.