The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the case of the assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fresh hearing following an ex parte dismissal due to the assessee’s non-compliance with notices.
Kona Shanthi Kumari,the appellant-assessee,did not submit her income tax return for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) identified that she had acquired 2.66 acres of land in Kommanapalli for ₹13,50,000 in cash. Unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of these funds, the AO reopened her assessment under section 147 of the Act.
Get a Copy of GST Question Compendium with 500 Real World Queries, Click Here
Following the issuance of a notice under section 148 on 31.03.2022, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of ₹8,50,000. The AO, however, was not convinced and determined her total income at ₹13,50,000, attributing it to unexplained investment.
Aggrieved by the AO’s decision, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to provide any supporting documents or attend the hearings scheduled by the CIT(A). This prompted the appellant to approach the tribunal.
In her appeal to the ITAT, the assessee raised several issues, including the validity of the reopening of the assessment, arguing that the prerequisites for issuing a notice under section 148 were not met. She also contended that the addition of ₹13,50,000 as undisclosed income was unjustified and lacked evidence. Additionally, she disputed the application of section 115BBE, asserting it was not applicable to her situation.
Get a Copy of GST Question Compendium with 500 Real World Queries, Click Here
During the proceedings, the Authorized Representative ( AR ) highlighted that the CIT(A) had issued an ex parte order without allowing adequate opportunity for the assessee to present her case. Conversely, the Departmental Representative ( DR ) argued that the assessee had neglected the chances provided.
The tribunal reviewed the case and noted that the CIT(A) had given the assessee several chances to appear, but the assessee did not comply. To ensure fairness, the tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The single member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Judicial Member ) directed the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings, and the CIT(A) may seek a remand report if needed. The grounds raised by the assessee were 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
