Krishna Punia Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
The assessee’s appeal for AY 2011–12 arose from an assessment framed under sections 143(3) read with 263. The Assessing Officer added ₹31.85 lakh on account of cash deposits after rejecting the assessee’s submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to delay and also confirmed the assessment on merits, citing non-compliance with hearing notices. On further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that, in the interest of natural justice, the matter required reconsideration. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication, with a direction not to raise the issue of delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 31-05-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 29-03-2022. The only prayer of Ld. AR is another opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.
2. It emerges that Ld. AO made addition of cash deposits for Rs.31.85 Lacs after rejecting assessee’s submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for delay and also confirmed the assessment on merits since the assessee did not comply with hearing notices. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
