ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. GURUSWAMY NAIDU YERRAGUNTLA, KUKATPALLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 254/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA. (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the AO an opportunity to comment on the documents submitted by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order where all additions made by the AO were deleted. The Revenue's grievance was that the CIT(A) accepted documents from the assessee without giving the AO an opportunity to verify them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without providing the AO an opportunity to examine and comment on newly submitted documents, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA.

Hearing: 19/09/2024

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 17/01/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Learned CIT(A)”), in the case of Guruswamy Naidu Yerraguntla (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2018-19, Revenue preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that aggrieved by the order dated 30/03/2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, whereunder three additions were made by the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Grievance of the Revenue is that during the course of appellate proceedings, assessee submitted certain documents which are enumerated by the learned CIT(A) at paragraph No.5.1 of the impugned order and the Learned CIT(A) without putting the learned Assessing Officer on notice received the documents, relied upon them and deleted all the additions unilaterally. According to the learned DR, the learned CIT(A) should have granted an opportunity to the learned Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of these documents and to offer his comments.

3.

On this aspect, learned AR fairly concedes that the impugned order does not show that neither the documents were forwarded to the learned Assessing Officer nor his comments were received after due verification.

4.

Having regard to these particular set of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) should have put the learned Assessing Officer on notice of the material produced by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings for the first time and invited his comments for proper appreciation of the documents. For not doing so, the principles of natura justice are violated and the Revenue deserves an opportunity to advance their view in respect of the documents.

5.

Both the counsels submitted that since the verification of the genuineness and the veracity of these documents is in question, it would be in the interest of justice, if the matter is restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering the documents and take a view according to law. Recording the same, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to consider the documents and take a view according to law after affording an opportunity to the assessee. Grounds are answered accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd September, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →