MALEPATI ADINARAYANA,KADAPA vs. ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 854/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 October 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, issuing notices too close together. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file an Income Tax Return for AY 2016-17. Despite notices, the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Hearing: 28/10/2024

Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17/05/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2016-17.

2.

At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 48 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee to which the assessee has filed an affidavit and condonation petition stating that since he is Page 1 of 4 digitally illiterate person, not aware of the order uploaded in the portal. After discussing with the learned DR, the delay of 48 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed ITR for the A.Y 2016-17. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued and served on the assessee. But the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte and assessed the total income/loss determined at Rs.95,20,224/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee neither appeared nor filed any written submission to substantiate his case. Thus, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT (A) only issued 2 dates of hearing on 2/5/2024 and 9/5/2024. We find that before the learned CIT (A), the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. The learned Counsel for the assessee explained the Page 2 of 4 reasons and argued that notices issued by the learned CIT (A) were not served on the assessee. It is an admitted fact that before disposing of any appeal, a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant needs to be given. In the present appeal, the learned CIT (A) had given 2 notices in the same month without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration and to give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and restore the issue back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration. The learned CIT (A) is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the learned CIT (A) and file all the details.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th October, 2024.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →