ABHAY DEVICHAND CHAUDHARY,AKOLA, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD - 1, AKOLA, MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 464/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 December 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite granting opportunities. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order which dismissed their appeal without considering the merits. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider evidence on record and that the notice under Section 148 and consequent assessment were illegal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, and whether the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. Dewani
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Captioned appeal by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 25/10/2017, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record.

2 Abhay Devichand Chaudhary

3.

The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. Consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled.

4. The addition made by A.O. at Rs.12,56,000/- u/s 69A of I.T. Act 1961 and upheld by CIT(A) in the case of assessee is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

5.

The learned AO, erred in making addition at Rs.12,56,000/- u/s 69A of I.T. Act 1961 by not considering the availability of savings, agricultural income and business receipts of assessee. 6. The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have held that sum of Rs. 12,56,000/- is not unexplained money of assessee and ought not to have made addition for the same. 7. No notice u/s 143(2) is issued before passing assessment order in respect to return of income submitted on 02/03/2022 consequent assessment framed determining income at Rs.16,26,573/- is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 8. The A.O. having not issued notice u/s 143(2) after submission of return of income ought to have determined income as shown in return. 9. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 10. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesse, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

3. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the 3 Abhay Devichand Chaudhary learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/12/2024

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →