NAGARAJAN NITHIYAKALYANI,SALEM vs. IRO, WARD-1(5),, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1971/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 October 2024AY 2017-181 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case, considering the principle of natural justice. This opportunity was granted at a cost of Rs.10,000, to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the assessee for AY 2017-18 arose from an order by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs.34.36 Lacs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under best judgment basis. The assessee had failed to make an effective representation before lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to substantiate its case after failing to appear before lower authorities, and if so, on what terms.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita ( Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 10-01-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act on 22-12-2019. The registry has noted delay of 134 days in the appeal, which stands condoned. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.34.36 Lacs u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. It could be seen that the assessee has failed to make any effective representation before any of the lower authorities. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The same would come at a cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned AO who shall proceed for de novo assessment after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with framing of assessment on the basis of material on record.

3.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th October, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे1ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :09-10-2024 DS आदेशकीJितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु:/CIT Salem. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड?फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →