SUNIL AHUJA,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 50/DDN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 December 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to file submissions and evidence. This was done in the interest of justice to allow for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) concerning additions of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans. The ex-parte order was passed due to the assessee's non-attendance on two occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH ‘SMC’, DEHRADUN

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 12.12.2022Pronounced: 14.12.2022

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 50/DDN/2020
ITA No. 51/DDN/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 05.10.2018.

2.

Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are identical, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order.

3.

In , following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed an ex-parte order, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

2. The learned Assessing Officer as also Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur have erred in making and confirming an addition of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans.”

4.

At the outset, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the addition has been made owing to non-submission of confirmation of Rs.1,50,000/- pertaining to M/s Doon Builders. The order has been passed ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A) owing to non-attendance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) on two occasions, 25.05.2018, 28.09.2018 and the ld. CIT(A) concluded the proceedings on 05.10.2018. It was submitted that given an opportunity, the additional evidences would be submitted before the ld. CIT(A). It was pleaded by the ld. DR that one opportunity may be accorded to represent the matter before the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to file appropriate submissions and pass an order in accordance with the law.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14/12/2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →