VAIBHAV DOSI,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 558/IND/2023Status: HeardITAT Indore07 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that an effective opportunity of hearing was not provided. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, especially concerning the last two notices issued within a short span.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the addition made under Section 69 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Mehta, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.05.2024Pronounced: 07.05.2024

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 31.10.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2017-18.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,72,641/- u/s. 69 of the Act made by the Ld. AO,

ITANo.558/Ind/2023 Vaibhav Dosi which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of the Act. Thus, the addition of Rs. 14,72.641/- made u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act is liable to be deleted.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,72.641/- u/s. 69 of the Act made by the Ld. AO without appreciating that the father of the appellant had already surrendered Rs. 15 Lakhs and as such, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing Ex-Parte Order u / s 250 of the Act without considering the facts of the case and without providing sufficient and proper opportunity of being heard and thus, the Order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 31.10.2023 is liable to be quashed and the appellant may kindly be provided with an opportunity of being heard.”

2.

At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. He has pointed out that in para 3 of the impugned order the CIT(A) has given the details of the notices which shows that the first notice was issued on 18.01.2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic period and thereafter two other notices were issued on 16.10.2023 & 25.10.2023. Thus the last two Page 2 of 5

ITANo.558/Ind/2023 Vaibhav Dosi notices were issued within the period of nine(9) days and thereafter the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on 31.10.2023 without giving sufficient opportunity to assessee to response to these notices. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that due to insufficient time given by the CIT(A) the assessee could not responded to notices issued by the CIT(A). Hence, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) ex-parte and dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution is liable to be set aside. He has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3. On the other hand, ld. DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

4.

We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The CIT(A) has passed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) has given the details of three notices issued in para 5 as under:

ITANo.558/Ind/2023 Vaibhav Dosi

5.

The first notice was issued on 18.01.2021 and then after the gape of more than two years and 9 months the second and third notice were issued on 16.10.2023 & 25.10.2023 respectively. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that these last two notices were issued in short span of time and assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity to furnish the requisite details and submission before the impugned order was passed on 31.10.2023.

We find force in the submissions of the Ld. AR that the assessee was not given an effective and appropriate opportunity of hearing Page 4 of 5

ITANo.558/Ind/2023 Vaibhav Dosi by the CIT(A) before passing the impugned order ex-parte and dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →