Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance. The assessee failed to appear or provide submissions on multiple hearing dates.
Held
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliant attitude, decided to provide one more opportunity by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, subject to a cost of Rs. 11,000/-.
Key Issues
Whether to provide another opportunity to the assessee for non-compliance and ex-parte decisions by lower authorities.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member :
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17.
On the previous date of hearing on 22.12.2025, none was present on behalf of the Assessee and therefore, the case was adjourned to today i.e. 24.12.2025 and notice was directed to be served through e-mail and telephonically and therefore the assessee served accordingly but still the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application, thus, we are constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 13.02.2024 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act has made following additions:
(i) Rs.2,32,48,673/- being variation in respect of unexplained expenditure; (ii) Rs. 84,30,000/- being variation in respect of unexplained investment; (iii) Rs.13,73,530/- being variation in respect of unexplained expenditure and (iv) Rs.3,05,462/- being variation in respect of undisclosed rental income.
Though the Assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite issuing three notices by the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee eventually made no compliance and therefore, the Ld. Commissioner was constrained to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee as ex-parte and ultimately in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, which the Assessee failed to file, affirmed the aforesaid additions by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee. If we consider the prima facie conduct of the Assessee, as appears from the orders passed by the authorities below, then the same shows as negligent and non-compliant attitude. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, the issues involved also remains to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner and thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to offer one more opportunity to the Assessee by remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, but subject to the cost of Rs.11,000/- to be deposited in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 30 days from the date of this order.
We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to file the relevant submissions and documents and make proper compliance before the Ld. Commissioner. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in the aforesaid terms.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.12.2025.