SOMUGOUNDER MOHAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 333/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 June 2024AY 2011-12Bench: 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, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity to substantiate the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an assessment framed on a best judgment basis due to the assessee's failure to make representations. The CIT(A) rejected additional evidence and confirmed the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present additional evidence and substantiate its case before the CIT(A) after an assessment framed on a best judgment basis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

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) 2011-12 arises out of an order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 30-01-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 26- 12-2019.

2.

The registry has noted a delay of 312 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 with disposal of the appeal on merits.

3.

During hearing, Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made certain additions of cash deposits since the assessee failed to make any representation therein. During appellate proceedings, the assessee sought admission of additional evidences which was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

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 appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The additional evidences shall be considered by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to substantiate its case and supply the requisite information forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal 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, Salem. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →