2021 (2) TMI 234 - HC - Income Tax

Denial of natural justice - Tribunal hearing the appeal exparte qua the assessee without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard - Representation through legal hier - as contended that the Tribunal ought to have afforded a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to ventilate his grievances - HELD THAT - As on the date of hearing before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Sri Shivakumar Thanwardas Wadhwa was no more and his son who is the appellant had sent a request letter. Tribunal failed to note that Shivkumar Thanwardas Wadhwa had expired in the year 2013 and therefore, he could not have appear nor execute any power of attorney. The very fact that the letter which was signed by Harish Wadhwa, was not considered by the Tribunal on the pretext that there was no power of attorney executed by Shivakumar Thanwardas Wadhya shows that without application of mind by the Tribunal, the matter has been disposed of by the Tribunal and also without properly adverting to the relevant facts involved in the case. We are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal needs to be set aside and proper opportunity to be afforded to the appellant herein to ventilate his case before the Tribunal. Accordingly, following order is passed without expressing any opinion on the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.

Issues:
1. Ex-parte hearing by Tribunal without affording appellant an opportunity of being heard.
2. Tribunal affirming CIT(A) order without assigning reasons.
3. Addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Addition of credit card expenses as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C.
5. Addition of undisclosed receipts.
6. Addition of unexplained investment under Section 69.

Ex-parte Hearing Issue:
The appellant challenged the ex-parte hearing by the Tribunal without providing an opportunity to be heard. The appellant contended that the Tribunal should have allowed him to present his case, citing the Victoria Memorial Hall case. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's representative sought an adjournment without proper authorization, leading to an ex-parte hearing. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in not considering the circumstances, as the appellant's father had passed away, and the representative's letter was dismissed due to lack of a power of attorney. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for the appellant to present his case properly.

Reasoning in Tribunal's Order Issue:
The appellant raised concerns about the Tribunal affirming the CIT(A) order without providing reasons. The Court observed that the Tribunal's decision lacked proper consideration of the appellant's situation, especially regarding the representative's letter and the deceased father's inability to appear. The Court emphasized the importance of proper assessment and consideration of facts, leading to the decision to set aside the Tribunal's order for a fresh consideration with sufficient opportunity for the appellant to present his case.

Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits Issue:
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect. However, the High Court did not express an opinion on this issue, as the primary focus was on the procedural errors in the Tribunal's handling of the case.

Credit Card Expenses Addition Issue:
The Tribunal upheld the addition of credit card expenses as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The appellant argued against this addition, highlighting the declaration of income under Section 44AD. The High Court did not delve into the merits of this addition but remanded the matter to the Tribunal for proper consideration, ensuring all contentions are heard and evaluated in accordance with the law.

Undisclosed Receipts Issue:
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of undisclosed receipts. The appellant raised concerns about this addition, considering the declaration of income under Section 44AD. The High Court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue but directed the Tribunal to re-examine the matter comprehensively, allowing all arguments to be presented and considered.

Unexplained Investment Addition Issue:
The Tribunal affirmed the addition of unexplained investment under Section 69. The appellant disputed this addition, mentioning the payment of security transaction tax and income exemption. The High Court did not delve into the specifics of this addition but instructed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue thoroughly, ensuring all aspects are reviewed in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present his case and ensuring proper evaluation of all contentions in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →