The Delhi 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,
Kumar Kanti Das, the appellant-assessee, had an assessment order passed against him under Section 143(3) of the Act, with an addition of ₹1,85,00,000 under Section 69A, dated 24/12/2019. In response, he filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed by order dated 30/01/2024. This dismissal by the CIT(A) is the subject of the current challenge.
Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here
The assessee challenged the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC )’s decision to uphold an assessment order dated 24/12/2019, which raised his income from ₹4,23,71,880 to ₹6,07,77,990, claiming the assessment was unlawful and violated natural justice as he was not granted a personal hearing.
He disputed the addition of ₹1,85,00,000 under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits, arguing it was speculative and unsupported, as the funds had been previously disclosed and explained in his records.
Additional objections included the incorrect application of Section 269SS, the imposition of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC.
The assessee’s counsel argued that the CIT(A)’s decision was flawed due to a violation of natural justice, as the appellant was not provided with a personal hearing. 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 and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here
The tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and examined the available records. The assessee had requested a video conference, which was arranged, and a personal hearing was subsequently scheduled. However, the assessee did not attend the hearing, resulting in the order being passed in his absence.
The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S ( Judicial Member ) and S.Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant 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 partially 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
