What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity to substantiate the case based on the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional on a cost deposit and requires the assessee to present their case effectively.

The assessee failed to attend first appellate proceedings and also did not make an effective representation during assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment and penalty were confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case despite prior negligence, and the implications for assessment and penalty proceedings.

Annamalai Ratnasabhapathi vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.919/Chny/2024

ITA No.920/Chny/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. is quantum appeal whereas ITA No.920/Chny/2024 is penalty appeal which arises out of separate orders of learned first appellate authority. Upon perusal of para-5 of impugned order in quantum appeal, it could be seen that the assessee has failed to attend first appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the assessment as well as penalty was confirmed. The assessee has failed to make any effective representation during assessment proceedings also. 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.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The same would come at a cost of Rs.10,000/- for both the appeals which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned AO who shall proceed for de novo assessment and also deal with consequential penalty after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with assessment as well as penalty on merits.

Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा45 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे9ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-07-2024 DS आदेशकीHितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुA/CIT Chennai. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडFफाईल/GF

ANNAMALAI RATNASABHAPATHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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