JAINULLABDEEN HAJA NAJUMUDEEN,TRICHY vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1413/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a large sum of cash during demonetization, which was treated as unexplained money. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to lack of proper opportunity to substantiate the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly followed the principles of natural justice by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 22.07.2024

[PAN: AORPN 8579G] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A., ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri V. Justin, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 26 .07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 20.12.2017 declaring the total income of Rs.7,25,320/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny due to large cash deposits during the demonetization period. The appellant deposited cash of rs.66,50,000/- during the demonetization period which was treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) while framing assessment u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2019. Being aggrieved assessee challenged the said order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has not given proper chance to substantiate and prosecute the appeal hence, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on merits.

3.

At the outset, Ld.AR for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(A), assessee will substantiate and prosecute the appeal properly. Ld.JCIT-DR relied upon order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

4.

We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We find that ld.CIT(A) has not given effective opportunity of hearing to appellant to substantiate and prosecute the appeal. We also observe that only two hearings were provided to the assessee on 29.12.2020 i.e; during Covid-19 period and on 27.03.2024 i.e; just 2 days before passing the impugned order. We are of the considered view that in this case ld.CIT(A) has not observed the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the light of aforesaid factual position and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of appeal on merits. The ld.CIT(A) will provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee during the hearing of the appeal afresh. 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 disposal of the appeal as per law.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th day of July, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →