Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी ’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No: 983/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner of Melekandy Puthalath Farook, v. Income Tax, Faraz No: 9, SBI Colony, Corporate Circle -2(1), Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: AAAPF-2644-P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17, vide order dated 06.03.2024.
The assessee is an individual filed return of income for AY 2016-17 on 07.06.2017, declared an income of Rs.28,76,000/- from capital gain and salary. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and concluded the assessment
:-2-: 983/Chny/2024 u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 24.12.2018 with the following additions: - Addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 2,28,32,537/- - Disallowance of cost of transfer expenses of Rs.21,40,000/- Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).
The ld.CIT(A) had issued six notices affording opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearing. However, the assessee had not responded. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing an exparte order dated 06.03.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.
The ld.AR stated that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution and prayed for remanding the matter back to the ld.CIT(A) .
The ld.DR fairly accepted for remanding the issue back to the ld.CIT(A).
:-3-: 983/Chny/2024 6. We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is noted that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee since the assessee has not responded to the notices. To meet the ends of justice, we remit back the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. We direct the assessee to appear and he is at liberty to submit the relevant details before the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the case.