CIT(A) order set aside as lack of evidence not communicated and no opportunity was given

CIT(A) order set aside as lack of evidence not communicated and opportunity to make good deficiencies not given

In the instant case, the assessee had jhallenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming various additions without giving adequate opportunity to make representation against the confirmations of additions.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3558 (2021) (10) ITAT

The Tribunal noted that after few adjournments the assessee’s chartered accountant had filed written submissions. Further, the impugned order was passed on the very same day considering the written submissions advanced whereby part relief was granted but part additions were confirmed.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had accepted fresh evidences filed and deleting additions qua some trade debtors but found evidences insufficient qua remaining trade debtors.

The grievance posed in the grounds of appeal was that deficiencies in evidence as noticed by the Commissioner were never communicated and opportunity to make good the deficiencies etc. consequently had not been provided.

The Revenue did not dispute the specific grievance that the deficiencies noticed for confirming part of the addition were never confronted to the assessee and lack of proper opportunity.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of the additions confirmed back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

Thus, the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms
• PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work
• CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner
• Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC
• For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated