Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEShri K.C. Devdas Shri Shakeer Ahamed
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 20.09.2023 for the A.Y.2019-20.
(A.Y. 2019-20) Jitender Roller Flour Mill 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Hyderabad ['Ld. CIT(A)'] in in treating the cash of Rs15,40,951 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('the Act') is unsustainable both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in adding the cash of ₹.9,95,560 being cash sales/ advances received from agents the details of which were not available on the date of search and was subsequently updated in the cash book on 07.05.018 as unexplained money on the ground that no credence can be given to such claim is unjust and arbitrary which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the addition made without any verification is bad in law and must be deleted.
3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the order of the Ld.AO in adding ₹.15,40,951 under section 69A of the Act without issuing a show cause notice and in not providing an opportunity to the Appellant for its rebuttal is in violation of principles of nature justice and fair play. Therefore the assessment is void ab intio and must be annulled.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be cancelled.
5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that 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 restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
Page No. 2
(A.Y. 2019-20) Jitender Roller Flour Mill 4. Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, on a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear. Considering the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld. AR 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. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.