2023 (6) TMI 1031 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - HELD THAT - CIT(A) decided the issue without considering the explanation offered by the assessee. By way of statement of facts and grounds of appeal, the assessee had offered explanation regarding source of cash deposited in bank account hence, to sub-serve the principle of natural justice, atleast the assessee should get opportunity to represent its case before the appellate authority. We, hereby, set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal raised before him afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges an order confirming an addition made by the assessing officer u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant contests the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and asserts violation of natural justice in the proceedings.

Grounds of Appeal:
1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under section 69 without proper consideration of the appellant's explanation and in undue haste.
1.1. The impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles and without judiciously considering the appellant's grounds.
1.2. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte without effective notice of hearing to the appellant.
2. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on unexplained investment by the assessee.
3. The CIT(A)/AO made the addition on assumptions and conjectures, ignoring documentary evidence provided by the appellant.
4. The authorities failed to appreciate the detailed documentary evidence submitted by the appellant to substantiate the source of funds.
5. The addition was made without recognizing that the investment was made by the appellant as Karta of his HUF.
6. The assessing officer erred in charging interest u/s 234B/234D of the Act.

Judgment Details:
The Counsel for the assessee argued that the impugned order was passed without giving adequate opportunity for representation. The Senior DR opposed the submissions and supported the lower authorities' orders. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) decided the issue without considering the appellant's explanation and directed the matter to be reconsidered, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appellant was instructed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Conclusion:
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue for fresh consideration, highlighting the importance of providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision was made to uphold the principles of natural justice, ensuring a proper hearing for the appellant in the assessment proceedings.