RAMASWAMY JEEVANLATHA,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte due to non-compliance. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present her case.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return declaring Nil income and substantial agricultural income. The Assessing Officer made additions for increased capital, agricultural income, and unexplained money. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified, and if the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 28.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 24.12.2019. :- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and running a proprietorship business in the name of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Paper Mills and M/s. Sri Lakshmi Engineering Works. She has filed her return of income on 28.03.2018 declaring at Nil income and agricultural income of Rs.20,50,831/-. The A.O has passed ex-parte order u/s. 144 of the Act making the addition on increase in capital u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs.1,62,97,648/-, Agriculture income u/s. 68 and 115BBE of the Act at Rs. 20,50,831/- and unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act at Rs.15,10,000/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by passing ex-parte order.
The Ld. A.R has submitted that the A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders ex-parte. The Ld. A.R has submitted that the assessee could not comply with the notices due to her age and ill- health and that of her husband. The Ld. A.R further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity. One notice was issued on 25.12.2020 fixing compliance on 15.02.2021, another notice on 01.03.2021 fixing compliance on 15.03.2021 and final notice was issued on 22.02.2024 fixing hearing on 28.02.2024. One notice was issued during Coving pandemic period and in the final notice sufficient time was not given. The Ld. A.R therefore, contended that the matter :- 3 -: may be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication where she can provide all the documentary evidence in support of her contention.
The Ld. D.R relied on the orders of the authorities below and requested to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the order has been passed by Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte for the non- compliance of the assessee. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate her case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the Assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for her fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. :- 4 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19th July, 2024. (यस यस िव"ने" रिव) (जगदीश) (Jagadish) (SS Viswanethra Ravi) "ाियक सद / Judicial Member लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य /Accountant Member सद"य चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 19th July, 2024. EDN/-
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026