Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 11/05/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:
–
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not providing proper opportunity to be heard and even the notices were not received by the assessee, without providing proper opportunity order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
2. The notice issued under section 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming consequent assessment framed by the assessing officer is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
M/s. Sapna Rajesh Rathi ITA no.205/Nag./2023
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs, made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 68 of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi without going into merits of case erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs under section 68 and treating the same as unexplained cash credit and, therefore, the addition is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.
The appellant denies liability of Interest U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the income Tax Act, 1961, without prejudice the levy of interest is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or grounds of appeal or raise any ground or grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
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. 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) gave opportunities to the assessee, 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 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 Page | 2
M/s. Sapna Rajesh Rathi ITA no.205/Nag./2023 remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate 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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/08/2024