HEMALATHA BHAIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 514/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 April 2015AY 2006-075 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) was not willful and the Department did not object to another opportunity. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return for AY 2006-07. The AO reopened the assessment after the assessee indicated income from the relevant period in a later return. The assessee failed to respond to notices and objections were raised, but no evidence was provided. The AO made additions and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting an opportunity for hearing, and whether the assessee should be given another chance to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri. N.K. Mohnot, I.T.P
For Respondent: Dr. Nischal, IRS, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, dated 27.11.2014 for the assessment year 2006-2007. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:

I.T.A.No.514/Mds/2015. :- 2 -:

1.

“1. The order dated 27.11.2014 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai 600 034, is quite arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts of the case of your appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) fails in giving the proper opportunity of hearing. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not giving fresh opportunity after restructuring of jurisdiction. 4. The learned CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating the facts of the case’’.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. But the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 09.07.2010 through which it was noted that the assessee had income from Capital Gains, Interest & Opening Capital pertaining to financial year 2005- 06 relevant to assessment year 2006-07. After obtaining approval from the JCIT, the assessment for the A.Y. 2005-06 of the assessee was re-opened, by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice u/s.148 on 12.08.2012. Since, the assessee did not respond to the notice, a reminder letter dated 24.09.2012 was issued. In response to the reminder letter, the assessee filed a letter stating that “Return of Income filed for the assessment year may kindly be treated as one filed in response to your above notice…….. I am trying to get a copy of ack. From my erstwhile auditor from Mumbai who have filed my returns…..’’. Later on, after another reminder, the assessee filed a letter on 27.09.2013 stating that “ I object to the above proceedings, since I have already filed my Return of Income for the I.T.A.No.514/Mds/2015. :- 3 -:

4th assessment year on Decmber, 2006 vide acknowledgement no.121106702 with ITO-12(1) (1), Mumbai.’’ But, the assessee did not furnish copies or evidence for having filed the Return of Income. Hence, the Assessing Officer sent a letter to the ITO 12(1) (1), Mumbai and in reply dated 09.10.2013, the ITO, Mumbai stated that ‘’no Returns are filed by Smt. Hemalata Bhaiya (PAN AABPH 4528H) on the dates and ackn. numbers stated in her letter dated 27.09.2013.’’ Finally, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 17.01.2014 to the assessee proposing the additions based on the material available on records. In response, no one appeared and furnished any detail or evidence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 by determining the taxable income at �70,73,540/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

4.

The case was fixed for hearing on 13.11.2014 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee filed a letter dated 13.11.2014 seeking adjournment. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) denied the adjournment and dismissed the appeal. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

5.

The ld. Authorised Representative prayed for giving one more opportunity to present the case before the Commissioner of Income Tax I.T.A.No.514/Mds/2015. :- 4 -:

(Appeals) and submitted that the assessee’s non appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was neither willful nor wanton.

6.

The ld. Departmental Representative has not raised any serious objection for giving one more opportunity to the assessee.

7.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the entire

issue back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to give one more opportunity to the assessee to put forth the assessee’s case and decide the issue afresh.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in 2015 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 13th day of April, 2015, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →