Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was preferred against an order that affirmed an addition of Rs. 1,18,75,399/- made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had failed to provide compliance despite opportunities before the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, noting that it was unclear if proper notices were issued for the hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority erred in not ensuring proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee before dismissing the appeal?
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24-05-2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (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. 2014-15.
M/s. Beautiful Electronics and Computers Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that in the instant case, the Assessing officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 06.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act worked out the long terms capital gain of Rs. 1,18,75,399/- and accordingly made the addition of the said amount.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording various opportunities by the ld. Commissioner, the assessee made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, affirming the addition of Rs. 1,18,75,399/-.
The Assessee being aggrieved preferred this appeal. However, in spite of sending notice to the Assessee for date of hearing on 16.05.2025, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed nay adjournment application and therefore we are constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte by hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.
Having heard the Ld. DR giving thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the impugned order, we observe that though the ld. Commissioner has mentioned at page no. 28 of the impugned order that in spite of availing multiple opportunity of hearing, the appellant miserably failed to file any satisfactory compliance, however, from the impugned order, it nowhere appears “as to whether any notice to the Assessee for the date of hearing, has ever been given by the ld. Commissioner or not” and therefore considering this particular aspect, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the ld.
We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner, accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025.