MRS BHAVANA RAJU SHINGOTE, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 123/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require that one opportunity be given to the assessee to substantiate its case. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred by disallowing the appeal on technical grounds and not considering the facts of the case. The revenue argued that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee.

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 addition of unexplained money and levy of tax were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Captioned appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 17/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. The appellant authority erred in disallowing appeal only on basis of technical reason of minor delay, without consider the facts of case. 2. That the learned CIT appeal erred in adding Rs 38,23,000 to the income of appellant u/s 69 A of the Act. 3. That the learned CIT appeal erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the case by not allowing appellant to represent case and decided appeal on the basic of ex-parte. 1

2 Smt. Bhavana Raju Shingote

4. The learned CIT appeal erred in law as well as on facts in applying the provisions of section 115BBE and thus levying tax @60percent and further surcharge @25 percent on unexplained money determined in the case of the appellant.

5.

The learned CIT appeal erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s. 234A amounting to Rs. 2,37,894 and u/s 2348 amounting to Rs. 9,81,684.

6.

The appellant may please be permitted to raise such other grounds of appeal as may be considered necessary 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 appeared 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 3 Smt. Bhavana Raju Shingote 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 20/12/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →