Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's case was reopened for AY 2016-17, and an assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, determining income at Rs. 68,80,630/-. This included additions for unexplained investment in property, shares, and remittances abroad, and undisclosed interest income. The CIT(A) upheld the additions and penalty proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-compliance and the ex parte assessment order, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the AO, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the AO when the assessment order and first appellate order were ex parte due to non-compliance, and whether principles of natural justice warrant remand.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 69, 115BBE, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), 271F, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 148, 148A, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of case and law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 of income tax Act which is passed against the principal of natural justice
2. On the facts and circumstances of case and law the CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs.6792785/- on account of purchase of property and treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, and taxed the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act.
3. On the facts and circumstances of case and law The CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 84,862/- on account of purchase of shares under section 69 of the Income Tax Act and treated the same as unexplained investment and taxed the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act.
4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income.
5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance to the notice u/s 142(1).
6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of income tax return for AY 2015-16.
7. The CIT(A) erred in confirming interest U/S 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148, dated 23.03.2023 in consequence of an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 after taking necessary approval from the Pr. CCIT, Mumbai. The assessee did not file its return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act.
Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. Also, show cause notice dated 04.03.2024 were issued and served upon the assessee. As the assessee failed to furnish complete details/information as required vide statutory notices issued by the ld. AO, inspite of several opportunities, the ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 13.03.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, determining total income at Rs. 68,80,630/- after making addition of Rs. 67,92,785/- as unexplained investment for purchase of immovable property, Rs. 84,862/- as unexplained investments for purchase of shares and remittance abroad and Rs. 2,982/- towards undisclosed interest income. ex parte order dated 25.03.2025, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has been non-compliant before the lower authorities.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. AO before the first appellate authority but has been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceeding.
The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has got a good case on the merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. AO as the assessment order was also an ex parte order.
The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. AO for the reason that the assessee was given several opportunities by the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) which was not availed by the assessee.
On the above facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. AO by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on upon the submission of the assessee and in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2025