SHAIK AKBAR,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to be heard and the fact that additions were made, decided to give the assessee one more chance. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification and assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made under Section 147 and Section 69A. The assessee contended that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE & SHRI NARASIMHA CHARI, HONBLEShri K.A. Sai Prasad
O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.12.2022 for the A.Y.2013-14.
(A.Y. 2013-14) SHAIK AKBAR 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority confirming the order U/s 147 of the I. T. Act is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case.
2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the cash deposit of Rs. 75,09,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act
3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority failed to give proper opportunity to present the facts.
4. The appellant prays leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the 4. time of hearing of appeal.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order. Further, Ld. DR submitted that she has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Page No. 2
(A.Y. 2013-14) SHAIK AKBAR 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On a perusal of the assessment order and Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we are of the view that this matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo verification and assessment. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
