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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 400/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee.

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, and whether the additions made were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

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

Date of Hearing – 01/07/2024 Date of Order – 01/07/2024

O R D E R PER V.D. RAO, J.M.

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), Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14.

2.

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

“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.

Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul ITA no.400/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.1,72,06,081/- 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.172.06 lacs being deposits in bank account without considering the withdrawals from bank account to hold the same as unexplained money is unjustified and unsustainable. 7. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs. 172.06 lacs being deposits in bank account in respect to transaction of business activity as unexplained money is unjustified. unwarranted and excessive. 8. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

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

Abdul Asif Abdul Kadir Abdul ITA no.400/Nag./2023 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 Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer 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.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/07/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →