The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter for fresh adjudication due to a short gap between the 3 notices issued by the CIT(A), leading to a lack of representation. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to give one more opportunity for the assessee to represent the case.
Mahendra Mehra, the assessee-company filed its income tax return for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had assessed the total income for the respective years at Rs. 99,00,000 under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rs. 1,64,00,000 under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act making additions under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investments.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Act, Click here
The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) and (c) of the Income Tax law for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and non-compliance. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the two assessments of the AO. The Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] dismissed the two appeals and no relief were granted.
Aggrieved by the CIT(A) decision, the assessee appealed before the income tax tribunal, Jaipur. The assessee’s counsel represented by Jai Deep Malik submitted that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to present the matter by the CIT(A) and prayed for one more opportunity to represent the matter before the CIT(A).
Get a Copy of Income Tax Act, Click here
The department counsel represented by A.S. Nehra argued that CIT(A) issues five notices that are available in the impugned orders. The assessee sought adjournment before the CIT(A) thrice. However, CIT(A) rejected the third adjournment request due to insufficient details regarding the reasons for the requested adjournments.
The two-member bench comprising Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member & Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member observed the dates of the notices issued for taking up the appeals by the CIT(A).
Get a Copy of Income Tax Act, Click here
It was further directed that the assessee deposit costs of Rs. 2000/- in each appeal to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
The tribunal observed there was a short gap between the three notices issued by the CIT(A). Thus, the tribunal considers granting one more opportunity to enable the assessee to represent his appeals before the CIT(A).
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
