The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the case of Abdulrahim Yakubbhai Gudala to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing a violation of natural justice and procedural lapses.
Abdulrahim Yakubbhai Gudala, appellant-assessee, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, disputing the addition of Rs. 2,05,00,477 as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
Despite receiving only one notice of hearing, Abdulrahim Yakubbhai Gudala did not appear, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss his appeal, upholding the addition of Rs. 2,05,00,477 as unexplained income.
The tribunal reviewed the facts of the case, appellant’s submissions, and the available records. It noted that the CIT(A) had issued an order without providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, which violated principles of natural justice, as only one notice of hearing was issued.
The assessee had shown that he had filed an appeal against the order dated 23.12.2019 before CIT(A) and had received only one notice of hearing on 20.01.2021, but was not given a further opportunity to present his case on merits, despite his submission that the order passed by CIT(A) was against the principles of natural justice.
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The tribunal also found that the addition of ₹2,05,00,477 under Section 69A was based on the assessee’s disclosure of unaccounted business income during a search. However, the assessee claimed that this income was actually business income, and this claim was not thoroughly examined by the AO or CIT(A), as the CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal without granting a proper opportunity of being heard.
The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to give the assessee a fair 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
