Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE
O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18/11/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 [for short, “ld. Commissioner”], Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2009-10.
In this case, ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order as ex-parte, by concluding as under:-
“4. Ground Nos. 1 & 8 are general in nature and no need to adjudicate separately. 5. Ground Nos. 2,3,4,5 & 6 related to assessment made by the Assessing Officer by making addition of Rs. 25,48,907/- u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961. 5.2. I have carefully considered the statement of facts, the grounds of appeal and also gone through the order passed by the AO and the information available on the record. It was noticed from the record that the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 25,48,907/- towards the income under the head of Long Term Capital Gains. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appellant preferred the present appeal. During the course of appellate proceedings neither the appellant nor the Authorized Representative has appeared in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. Since the appellant has not produced any substantial evidence in support of its claim either before the AO or during the course of appeal proceedings, it was construed that there is no explanation to offer by the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition of Rs. 25,48,907/- under the head of Long Term Capital Gains the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, the appeals made by the appellant on these grounds stand dismissed.
6. Ground No.7 relates to the charging of interest under section 234A and 234B of the I.T. Act. 6.2 Charging of interests u/sec. 234A and 234B is consequential in nature, hence, not adjudicated separately.
7. In the result, the appeal made by the appellant for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is hereby dismissed.”
The Ld. Commissioner though in first para of the impugned order observed to the effects “in response to the final opportunity of hearing, none appeared, therefore the appeal is finalised based on the information available on record”, however, from the order, it is not clear by which mode notice has been sent and as to whether notice has been served upon the Assessee or not and how many times, notices have been issued and/or served.
The ld. Commissioner has not decided the appeal on merits by independent finding, but just upheld the assessment order. As the matter requires factual considerations and analyzations and the Assessee failed to plead its case before the Ld. Commissioner, due to non-appearance on one or other reasons, therefore considering the principles of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand back to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say while affording reasonable opportunity(s) of being heard to the Assessee, hence ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.
Order Pronounced in open Court on this 14th day of June, 2021.