AMAN NARPAT JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 212/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to file submissions, and the AO to frame the assessment after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for not providing adequate explanation to the AO. The assessee claimed personal problems prevented proper defense before the AO and requested a last opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A), and if a fresh opportunity should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 04.07.2024Pronounced: 28.08.2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058251503(1) dated 28.11.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 28.11.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the Ld. AO has passed an order ex-parte without considering the replies of the assessee. It was further argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the order of the Ld. AO without any basis / supporting evidences. 3.0 According to the Ld.AR of the assessee, the assesse could not appropriately and adequately defend its case before the Ld. AO on account of personal problems. Accordingly, it was pleaded that a last opportunity be given to the assesse to present its case before the Ld. AO. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), the Ld.AR pleaded one more opportunity be granted to the assessee before the Ld. AO. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn't want us to give one more innings to the assessee. Having heard both the sides and perused the records, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing that “…In this case assesse gave no explanation to the Ld. AO and I find the explanation given at the appeal stage is on the one hand without any basis or supporting evidence and on the other hand improbable from the point of circumstantial evidence and human probability…..”. Thus it is clear that no explanation was given to the

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →