Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the AO's action and confirming an addition of Rs. 1,90,86,605/-, all without providing a speaking order or proper findings on the merits.
Held
The ITAT found that both the AO and the CIT(A) had passed non-speaking ex-parte orders without proper adjudication. In the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment order by the AO under Section 144 and the affirming order by the CIT(A) were non-speaking and passed without proper adjudication, warranting a remand for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ANIL JAIN, VS. ITO, WARD 36(2), 301, THIRD FLOOR, New Delhi NARKHANDA APARTMENT, SECTOR-31, GURGAON HARYANA-122001 (PAN: AAEPJ3523D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:
This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 12.08.2024 relevant to assessment year 2017-18.
At the threshold, Ld. AR submitted that in this case AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act. Subsequently, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by affirming the action of the AO and even without deciding the matter on merits of the case by passing a non-speaking order. Hence, it was requested to remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act and similarly, Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO by holding as under:- “6.1.3. …In view of the above, submission made by the appellant is not acceptable. Hence, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,90,86,605/- is hereby confirmed and accordingly grounds of objection 3,5 & 6 raised by the appellant is hereby rejected.” 3.1 After perusing the aforesaid findings, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper finding and passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which ld. DR has no objection. We hold and direct accordingly. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings before him.