PALANIAPPAN RAVI,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVHENGODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 603/CHNY/2024Status: PendingITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the ex-parte assessment and the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, which was condoned. The primary issue was the violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) in not providing adequate opportunity of hearing. The AO had made an addition under Section 69A based on an ex-parte assessment under Section 144.

What were the issues?

Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the lower appellate authority by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether an ex-parte assessment order warrants a de novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

Hearing: 20.05.2024Pronounced: 29.05.2024

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल ,लेखा सद� एवं माननीय �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� के सम�। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Palaniappan Ravi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.888, N.C. Colony, Ward 2, Elanthakuttai (PO) Tiruchengode Veppadai, Namakkal 638 008 [PAN: AMCPR 6276M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060546407 (1) of the ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Office of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) [CIT(A)], NAGPUR dated 06.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The registry has noted delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

It is noticed by us while dictating the order that assessment year mentioned in Form 36 and order sheet are wrongly referred as AY 2017-18 whereas on grounds of appeal, impugned order and assessment order it is mentioned as AY 2012-13. Hence, we proceed taking AY as 2012-13 on the basis of impugned order. Registry is directed to correct the assessment year in its computer data for accurate information.

4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice in sending purported notices 24.12.2021, 07.02.2022 and 12.05.2023 etc to the Assessee. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given to appellant, appellant would prosecute his case properly before the lower authorities. The Ld. JCIT-DR Mr. S. Easwar pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear even before the ld. first appellate authority.

5. From the case record, it emerges that while completing assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short ‘the Act’) the assessing officer (In short ‘AO’) made an addition of Rs.23,32,961/- maintained with State Bank of India at SME Branch, Pallipalayam on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Upon further appeal, the position remained the same and the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority also. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on merits by the Ld.CIT(A) for the reason that assessee failed to file relevant documents, against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

6.

Though we appreciate the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and the principles of natural justice we deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate his case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the assessment is restored back to the file of Ld. A.O. for de novo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.5000/- 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 will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld. A.O. whose shall proceed for de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to file cogent evidence, if any, to substantiate his case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. A.O. shall be at liberty to proceed with the de novo assessment on merits.

7.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for a statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th day of May, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →