JETENDER ROLLER FLOUR MILL,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 587/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 January 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee could not appear. Considering the additions made by the AO and the submissions, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A) which treated cash of Rs. 15,40,951 as unexplained money. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEShri K.C. Devdas Shri Shakeer Ahamed

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas
For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed
Pronounced: 30.01.2024
1.

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.”

3.

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).

5.

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.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →