ABDUL ASIF ABDUL KADIR ABDUL,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-WARD-1,AKOLA, AKOLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 401/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 September 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. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex-parte order. The assessee contended that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The revenue argued that sufficient opportunities were provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Whether the addition made under Section 69A and tax levied under Section 115BBE were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

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

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 10/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.

2.

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

“1. The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. 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 Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul ITA no.401/Nag./2023

3.

The appellant was prevented on account of reasonable cause in making detailed submission before Hon'ble CIT(A) and thus dismissal of appeal ought to be set aside for providing sufficient opportunity.

4.

Notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and consequent reassessment framed is liable to be cancelled.

5.

The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.2,17,41,153/- u/s 69A and tax levied u/s 115BBE of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unsustainable and unwarranted. 6. The addition made by A.O and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.217.41 lacs being deposits in bank account without considering the withdrawals from bank account to hold the same as unexplained money is unjustified and unsustainable.”

3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

4. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities inspite of that the assesse has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not filed relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though the learned CIT(A) gave opportunities to the assessee, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his 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

3 Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul ITA no.401/Nag./2023 the matter afresh 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.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/09/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →