PREETI KAMAL KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 527/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 December 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay without considering the COVID-19 exclusion period. The assessee also claimed a lack of opportunity to be heard and an addition on account of unexplained expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the COVID-19 exclusion period and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 23/08/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad-in-law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing appeal without considering the fact that, the delay period fell within COVID-19 period which was excluded by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2 Preeti Kamal Kothari 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal. 4. The learned AO erred in making an addition on account of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C to the tune of Rs.9,99,794/- and learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the same on merits. 5. The Appellant prays leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add, amend, alter any of the Grounds of Appeal.”

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 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 3 Preeti Kamal Kothari 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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →