ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) for Fresh Hearing on ₹10.95 Lakh Addition due to Consultant's Non-Compliance [Read Order]
The ITAT allowed a fresh hearing, noting it would not affect the Revenue and would give the assessee, who cited agricultural income and limited means, a fair chance to present their case.
![ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) for Fresh Hearing on ₹10.95 Lakh Addition due to Consultants Non-Compliance [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/itat-itat-ahmedabad-CITA-ITAT-Remands-Case-to-CITA-Taxscan.jpg "ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) for Fresh Hearing on ₹10.95 Lakh Addition due to Consultants Non-Compliance [Read Order]")
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication of a ₹10.95 lakh addition, citing the consultant's failure to respond to hearing notices as the reason for the ex-parte decision. Maheshkumar Kuberdas Patel,appellant-assessee,challenged the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the...
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication of a ₹10.95 lakh addition, citing the consultant's failure to respond to hearing notices as the reason for the ex-parte decision.
Maheshkumar Kuberdas Patel,appellant-assessee,challenged the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ),passed under Section 250 of the act.
The Income Tax Officer ( ITO ), passed an assessment order on 15.12.2019, determining the total income at Rs. 16,45,030/- compared to the returned income of Rs. 5,49,980/- due to unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) issued hearing notices on 13.01.2021, 06.04.2021, 02.01.2024, 06.01.2024, and 09.05.2024, which were delivered via email as per Form No. 35. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance.
The assessee, aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ), approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal.
A single member bench comprising of Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice-President ) was informed that the consultant failed to respond to the notices, causing the appeal to be dismissed. It was also mentioned that the assessee was a small employee with income from agriculture and requested a chance to be heard. The Departmental Representative ( DR ) agreed.
The tribunal found that no harm would come to the Revenue by giving the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The matter was then remanded to the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal after providing a proper hearing.
In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
