2022 (3) TMI 884 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee - DR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on the ground that the provision of section 249(4) is negatively worded and prohibits the decision by the Ld.CIT(A) - HELD THAT - The assessee ought to have been given an opportunity for making submissions regarding admissibility of appeal. Therefore in the interest of principle of nature justice and to sub-serve the interest of substantive justice, hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) to re-consider the grounds after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11.
2. Confirmation of addition of ?15,00,000 made by Ld. AO under section 68 of The Act.
3. Validity of assessment due to jurisdictional issues and non-filing of return.
4. Request for annulment of illegal assessment or deletion of the addition of ?15,00,000.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The appellant raised grounds challenging the legality and justification of the order, specifically contesting the addition of ?15,00,000 made by the Ld. AO under section 68 of The Act. Additionally, jurisdictional issues were raised regarding the issuance of notice by a different jurisdictional officer and non-filing of return due to income being below the taxable limit for that assessment year.

2. During the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice was received. The Ld. Sr. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal citing section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibits decision-making by the CIT(A) in certain cases. The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s reasoning, emphasizing the importance of complying with advance tax provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's assessed income was ?15,00,000, and the tax liability was ?7,18,301, exceeding the threshold for advance tax payment, thus rendering the appeal inadmissible due to non-compliance with section 249(4)(b).

3. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to present arguments on the admissibility of the appeal before dismissal. In the interest of natural justice and substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the grounds of appeal for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating that the assessee's appeal was reinstated for further consideration by the CIT(A) after providing the necessary opportunity for submissions. The Tribunal's decision aimed to uphold principles of natural justice and ensure fair proceedings, emphasizing the importance of giving the assessee a chance to present their case adequately.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a detailed understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.

← Previous Next →