CHINNASAMY LALITHAMANI,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, TIRUCHENGODE, TIRUCHENGODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 308/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, decided to grant another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income or make any representation before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The AO made additions on best judgment basis, and the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case despite prior negligence, and if the ex-parte assessment order should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” 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 an ex-parte order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 16-08-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 of the Act on 25- 09-2019.

2.

The registry has noted delay of 110 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee. Considering the contents of affidavit and period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed for disposal of the appeal on merits. During hearing, Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR also submitted that written submissions were filed by the assessee before lower authorities which has remained to be considered.

3.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO made certain estimated additions of cash deposits u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE. The assessee neither filed return of income nor made any representation therein. The position remained the same during appellate proceedings and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4.

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. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case and supply the requisite information forthwith failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment on merits on the basis of material on record.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd June, 2024 (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-06-2024 DS आदेशकीHितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT Chennai/Madurai/Trichy/Salem. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →