GANESH NAIDU,KRISHNAGIRI V. ITO, ASSESSMENT UNIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1697/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mr. Ganesh Naidu against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was passed ex parte. The primary issue was the best judgment assessment made by the AO under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee's representative argued that the additions made were high-pitched and not substantiated due to the lack of adequate notice and opportunity to present relevant documents. The Departmental Representative opposed granting another opportunity, citing the assessee's previous non-appearances. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, decided in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35635 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMUEL PITTA
• Assessee Lawyers: D.ANAND
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील\tय अ धकरण, ‘ए’ \u000eयायपीठ, चे\u000eनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल, लेखा सद\u0007 क े सम\u001d BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1697/Chny/2024 \u0018नधा\u0019रण वष\u0019/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ganesh Naidu, 169, SIPCOT Housing Colony, Mookandapally Dharga Hosur, Krishnagiri-635 126. v. The ITO, CHE-W-(231)(92) Chennai. [PAN: AHJPG 5269 K] (अपीलाथ\u001d/Appellant) (\u001e\u001fयथ\u001d/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u001d क ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.D. Anand \u001e\u001fयथ\u001d क ओर से /Respondent by : Dr. Samuel Pitta, JCIT सुनवाईक तार\tख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणाक तार\tख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short \"the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 26.04.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2015-16. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee and the AO also has passed the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short \"the Act”). According to the Ld.AR, high pitched ITA No.1697/Chny/2024 (AY 2015-16) Mr. Ganesh Naidu :: 2 :: additions have been made by the AO without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he prayed that an opportunity of hearing may be granted to the assessee before the AO; and the Ld.AR undertakes to file all relevant documents before the AO and for such a proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. According to the Ld.DR, the assessee has been deliberately not appearing before the authorities and therefore, he should not be granted one more opportunity before AO. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee and likewise, the assessment order has been framed ex parte qua assessee. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee didn’t receive notice of hearing and only received the notice dated 01.03.2023 which was responded on 06.03.2023 and the AO had passed the order on 25.03.2023 i.e. within ‘20’ days. Therefore, the assessee couldn’t file the relevant documents/written submissions before the AO. Be that as it may, we find that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). In such a scenario, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT ITA No.1697/Chny/2024 (AY 2015-16) Mr. Ganesh Naidu :: 3 :: reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO with a direction to de novo assess the income of the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file relevant documents /written submissions to substantiate his claim and the AO to frame de novo assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 18th day of October, 2024, in Chennai. Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u000eया\u0018यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\u000eनई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 18th October, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क \u001e\u0018त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\f/Appellant 2. \r\u000eथ\f/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0014/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\rितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u001dफाईल/GF "