JAINULLABDEEN HAJA NAJUMUDEEN,TRICHY vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY
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?
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
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Subrat Kumar Samal vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Laxmipriya Biswal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax,BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Jagannath Engineering,Angul vs. Assistant Commissioner, Angul Division ,AngulOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Archana Agro, Nayagarh vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Jagannath Associates, Angul vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026