Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal relates to an order concerning assessment year 2012-13. The primary grounds of appeal allege that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard and made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 44 lacs without considering the facts. The assessee claimed the investment was made by her husband, and relevant documents were not considered.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the investment was made by her husband and that neither the Form 26AS nor bank statements were submitted. Due to the lack of verifiable documents and to ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the AO erred in passing an ex-parte assessment order without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and whether the addition was made without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 30.04.2025 relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:-
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in laws, the AO failed to give reasonable opportunity to the appellant to represent its case by passing an exparte assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act.
2. The AO has grossly erred in making addition amounting to Rs. 44 lacs without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the ld. DR.
3. I note that it was the contention of the assessee made in the grounds of appeal that the AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 and made the addition of Rs. 44 lacs without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It is further noted that it is the contention of the Assessee before the lower authorities that the investment of Rs. 44 lacs in the mutual funds was made by her husband Shri Har Moinder Karan Singh and she was only a joint owner and the entire investment was made by her husband from his account. The said investment was reflected in the 26AS of both the persons i.e. the asessee and her husband. Further, she has claimed that she has enclosed the copy of Form 26AS for FY 2011-12 for ready reference and record, however, on perusal of the attachment submitted by the assessee in her reply in ITBA system, it was found that neither copy of Form 26AS was enclosed with the submission nor any transaction proof or any copy of bank statement of the relevant period was enclosed. Hence, the AO made the addition. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid pleas of the assessee needs to be verified and examined at the level of the Assessing Officer, afresh, after considering all the facts, circumstances and relevant documents and then decide the issue in dispute afresh, in accordance with law. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, I remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussions. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings and canvass its case properly.