What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee has a right to a proper hearing, they cannot subvert legal procedures through non-compliance. To ensure substantial justice, one more opportunity was granted.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to provide required details. The assessee contended they were not given enough time, while the Revenue argued against giving another chance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case and required details.

Sennimalaigounder Sivasamy… vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 22.07.2024Pronounced: 31.07.2024

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/250/2023-24/1064809738(1) dated 10.05.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2013- 14. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 10.05.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi by raising grounds of appeal including an additional ground of appeal.

2.0 At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assesse pointed out that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order without hearing the assesse; and has only reiterated the AO’s action. According to the Ld.AR, the assesse was not given sufficient opportunity from the Office of the Ld.CIT(A) to provide the required details. Therefore, he pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assesse. The Ld.DR alternatively contended that a cost should be imposed upon the assesse for his non-compliance in submission of required details before the Ld.CIT(A).

4.0 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has noted in para 2 and 2.1 his order that the assesse did not provide required details and explanation in support of grounds of appeal raised and had proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on records.

According to the assesse, it was not given sufficient time to furnish the detail. Be that as it may, it should be borne in mind that if an assesse is aggrieved by the Assessment Order, he has statutory right of appeal before the First Appellate Authority and such a right would be futile, if the First Appellate Authority doesn’t give proper opportunity of hearing to the assesse. However, at the same time an assesse cannot be allowed to subvert legal procedures by non-compliance and still take the benefit a legal remedy. Considering the overall conduct of the assesse before the Ld.CIT(A) an element of willful non-compliance cannot be denied. We are therefore of the view that to do substantial justice one more opportunity be provided to the assessee to represent the true and clear facts before the CIT(A) and hence, we set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the AO with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras on or before 30.08.2024. The assessee will pay this cost and produce the receipt before the AO. The assesse is directed to file written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate the grounds of appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assesse.

5.0 In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31st July, 2024 at Chennai.

SENNIMALAIGOUNDER SIVASAMY,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC-2, , COIMBATORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments