Sri. Muniswamy Reddy Ramesh, Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 34/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7401 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Tax effect
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 34/Bang/2022 Assessment year: 2013-14 Sri Muniswamy Reddy Ramesh No. 16, 3 rd Main, 3 rd Cross, Banagirinagar, BSK 3 rd Stage, Bangalore - 560085 PAN: AIAPR 1978G Vs. The Asst. Commission of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Guruswamy, ITP Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR), ITAT, Bangalore. Date of hearing : 08.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 7.8.2018 of the CIT(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- 1. The impugned ex-parte Appellate order dated: 07-08-2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Bangalore-7 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte Appellant order by rejecting of an application filed under Rule 46A for admission of the relevant documents, without providing an opportunity to the Appellant of being heard to meet the principles of natural justice. Rs. 3,32,42,060/- 3. Without prejudice to the Ground No.2, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have passed the Appellate order on merits of the case based on the written submissions of the Appellant filed on 24-07-2018 before the Ld. CIT(A) . Same as above ITA No. 34/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 3 4. Without prejudice to the Ground No.2 and 3 above the Ld. CIT(A)has not providedsufficient opportunity to the Appellant of being heard after filing of written submissions dtd: 27-04-2018 since the Ld.CIT(A) has not posted the case for further hearing of the Appeal. . Same as above 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. Total tax effect Rs. 3,32,42,060/- 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessment order in this case is passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. In appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed various additional evidence along with application for admission of the same, which were not admitted by the CIT(Appeals) observing that non-compliance of notice and non-production of details of evidence during the assessment proceedings was a deliberate act on the part of assessee. The CIT(Appeals) therefore observed that additional evidence filed by assessee cannot be admitted. Further regarding the addition made by the AO, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee has not participated in the assessment proceedings even after sufficient opportunity of hearing and hence he confirmed the order of the AO. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have admitted the additional evidence which he failed to do so defeating the principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) has to be vacated so as to give a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee to furnish necessary details for the purpose of assessment. 4. The ld. DR submitted that in spite of sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee, the assessee failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, as such additional evidence was not admitted by the CIT(Appeals) which has to be confirmed and order of CIT(Appeals) has to be upheld. ITA No. 34/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 3 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the assessment order passed by the AO is an ex parte order and on this count the assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) failed to admit the same on the reason that assessee failed to produce these evidence before the AO. In this case, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice by not giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Being so, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh decision with a direction to the assessee to file all necessary evidence in support of its case before the AO and the AO has to consider the same in true letter and spirit and pass fresh assessment order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With these observations, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 8 th day of March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 8 th March, 2022. / Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.