The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication due to the denial of a personal hearing to the assessee.
Prashant Bharatkumar Shah, the appellant-assessee, had an assessment order passed against him by the Income Tax Officer, with an addition of ₹1,35,28,150 under Section 69, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. In response, he filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed by order dated 24/05/2024. This dismissal by the CIT(A) is the subject of the current challenge.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The assessee challenged the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC )’s decision to uphold an assessment order dated 24/05/2024, which confirmed an addition of ₹1,35,28,150 under Section 69, claiming the assessment was unlawful and violated natural justice as he was not granted a personal hearing.
He disputed the addition of ₹1,35,28,150 under Section 69, arguing it was arbitrary and unsupported, as the Assessing Officer failed to provide details of the transactions or evidence on which the addition was based.
Additional objections included the Assessing Officer’s failure to provide reasons for reopening the assessment, the arbitrary addition and the dismissal of the appeal without granting a proper hearing.
The assessee’s counsel,Satish Solanki argued that the CIT(A)’s decision was flawed due to a violation of natural justice, as the appellant was not granted a proper opportunity of being heard. As a result, it was requested that the order be set aside. In contrast, the Departmental Representative ( DR ) defended the decisions of the lower authorities, but the Tribunal ultimately remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The Tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee’s counsel and examined the available records, noting that the CIT(A) had issued notices on 29.07.2022 and 17.05.2024, to which the assessee did not respond, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar ( Vice-President ) and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, ensuring that the assessee is provided an opportunity to present his case.
In Conclusion,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
