AKBAR PASHA KHADRI SAYAD,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the revenue authorities.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 1,35,82,300/- under Section 69A and Rs. 4,110/- under Section 56. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the notice under Section 148 was time-barred.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : None (Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, AR) प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)],National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059094642(1) dated 27.12.2023 arising out of order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 22.03.2022 for the assessment year (A.Y.)2013-14. Akbar Pasha Khadri Sayad, Eluru
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and assessment in the case of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and addition of Rs.1,35,82,300/- was made u/s 69A and Rs.4,110/- u/s 56 of the Act, thereby, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,86,410/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have considered the facts of the case and the Grounds of appeal
before dismissal ex-parte.
2. Learned CIT(Appeals) issued hearing notices on 11.8.23 and 23.11.23 and proceeded to pass orders ex parte and the appellant was not accorded a fair opportunity of hearing before dismissal.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not observing that the Notice dt.29.3.2021 u/s 148 issued by the jurisdictional AO (ITO Ward-3(1), Vijayawada) was not in accordance with the law being time-barred, learned CIT(Appeals) has not considered the jurisdictional error raised before him in the Appeal Memorandum, which goes to the root of the assessment.
4. The appellant crave leave to add or amend any Ground of Appeal.
Akbar Pasha Khadri Sayad, Eluru
Neither the assessee nor his representative has appeared before the Tribunal. The only contention of the assessee as raised in the Ground No.2 is that the Learned CIT(Appeals) issued hearing notices on 11.8.23 and 23.11.23 and proceeded to pass order, ex parte without according a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissal.
The Ld.DR submitted that as evident from the orders of the revenue authorities, the assessee was given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee did not avail the same. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the material placed on record. It is evident that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,86,410/- and the assessee’s appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient time to substantiate his claim with evidences and prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit Akbar Pasha Khadri Sayad, Eluru the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th June,2024. (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरुआर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 20.06.2024 L.Rama, SPS
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026