ARUNKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-8(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1187/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's negligence but, citing violation of natural justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's counsel undertook to present the case properly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a practicing advocate, failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite receiving notices. The assessment was framed on a best judgment basis, and the first appeal was decided ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 01-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 01-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee arises out of an ex-parte order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 17-08-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 of the Act on 15-12-2019. Since the assessee failed to make any representation during assessment proceedings, certain additions were made in the hands of the assessee. The position remained the same before first appellate authority wherein the assessee failed to make any representation. It is noteworthy that the assessee is practicing as an advocate still he has completely ignored the various notices issued by lower authorities and has remained negligent in attending the proceedings.

2.

Citing violation of principle of natural justice, Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing to the assessee which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR on the ground that the assessee being an advocate should have remained vigilant about the proceedings.

3.

It is unfortunate that though the assessee is a practicing advocate still he has remained negligent in attending the proceedings before lower authorities, however, accepting the request of Ld. AR we restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Ld. AR has already undertaken to substantiate the case of the assessee forthwith.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. . Order pronounced on 01st February, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →