MRS. MAMTHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1074/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, providing another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerns the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 25.00 Lacs as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to attend the first appellate proceedings, leading to the confirmation of the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority, considering their failure to attend the initial proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 22-02-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27-12-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is against confirmation of addition of Rs.25.00 Lacs as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. From para-4 of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee has failed to attend first appellate proceedings and accordingly, the assessment has been confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

Keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case.

3.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-07-2024 DS आदेशकीKितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →