SENTHIL,CHENNAI vs. ITO,WRD-6(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: 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 ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority, leading to additions on account of unexplained investment and unexplained money. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority despite previous non-appearances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI.

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

Hearing: 16.04.2024Pronounced: 16.04.2024

आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057653229 (1) dated 03.11.2023. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 6(5), Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 04.12.2019

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee. Hence, rejected the adjournment application filed by assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear even before the ld. first appellate authority.

3.

From the case record, it emerges that Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment and unexplained money under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’). Upon further appeal, the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority and did not produce any material to substantiate his grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

4. Though we appreciate the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR, however keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication 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 may be furnished to the Ld. CIT(A) whose shall proceed for de novo adjudication of the appeal. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal on merits. The appeal stands allowed for a statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2017-2018 is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 16th day of April , 2024, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →