Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return disclosing income of Rs. 2.47 lakhs. Later, based on information about property purchase of Rs. 75.60 lakhs, reassessment proceedings under section 147 were initiated. The assessment was completed ex-parte at Rs. 5.71 crores due to non-response to notices. The first appeal was dismissed for non-representation on multiple dates.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not presented arguments on merits at any stage and had raised new grounds regarding the limitation of the notice under section 148. Since the assessment order lacked a date-wise sequence of events for proper calculation and this issue was not adjudicated by the lower authorities, the matter was remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the notice under section 148 was issued within the limitation period, and whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
139, 147, 144, 148, 148A, 69, 69A, 250, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 07.06.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, vide order dated 11.05.2023.
Condonation of Delay: This appeal is filed vide speed post from Srinagar which has reached the office of the tribunal at Amritsar, belatedly by two days, on 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 8th august, 2024, the nominal delay in this case is condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing on merits.
There are eight grounds taken by the assesee in form 36, but the main grievance pertains to disposal of the appeal without allowing proper opportunity of being heard.
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has filed return u/s 139 disclosing income at Rs.2.47 lakhs, and subsequently on the basis of information contained in the ITBA portal that the assessee has purchased immovable property of Rs. 75.60 lakhs, proceedings were initiated u/s 148 dated 18/05/2021 (under extended period of TOLA). 4.1 Subsequently, proceedings continued u/s 148A(b) of the Act, as per directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ashis Agarwal [2022] 138taxmann.com64 dated 04/05/2022, and in absence of any response or representation to various notices issued in course of assessment proceedings, the assessment was completed “exparte” on a total income of Rs. 5.71 crores (which includes an addition of Rs. 75.60 lakhs for unexplained investment in property u/s 69, plus unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 77.98 lakhs u/s 69A, plus unexplained credits in bank Rs.4.12 crores, amongst others).
The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT ( A ) for non-representation by the assesse on seven separate occasions fixed for hearing (as evident from para – 4 of the appellate order ), even though adjournments has been sought by the assessee and allowed on three such occasions, which proves service of notice, and indicates intentional neglect by the assessee and his counsel in refusing to respond to such opportunities allowed, which has resulted in disposal of the appeal on merits by the Ld. first appellate authority on the basis of materials and information on record.
Now the assessee is before the tribunal raising grievance of non-allowability of opportunities of hearing by the Ld. first appellate authority, which is totally contrary to facts and misleading in nature, considering the fact that the first hearing notice was issued on 01/12/2023 and the seventh notice dated 23/05/2024, allowed time till 03/06/2024, for response, has remained un represented, even after seeking adjournments on three occasions.
Now before the tribunal the assessee has not filed any paper book or documentary evidences in support of his remaining grounds of appeal contained in form 36, and has not submitted any arguments on merits of the case, but has now filed an application for acceptance of additional grounds of appeal challenging the notice issued u/s 148 dated 26/07/2022 as follows:
“1. The entire assessment is bad in law, in view of the fact, that notice issued u/s 148 on 26.07.2022 is bad in law and is barred by limitation as per the directions given by Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal.”
7.1 In course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 dated 26/07/2022, is barred by limitation being beyond the surviving period as per computation of time frame laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167taxmann.com70 dated 03/10/2024, and he prayed for adjudication on the said ground.
Per contra the Ld. DR objected to the entertaining of the additional ground , and submitted that this issue was never raised by the assessee neither before the AO , nor before the Ld. CIT(A) in course of first appeal and is not even contained in the grounds of appeal in form 36 and he further submitted that the assessment order does not contain the date wise sequence of events, without which, no proper calculation / computation, is possible and he relied on the order of the Ld. first appellate authority, praying for upholding the same.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record, and we find that there is no submissions on the merits of the case at any stage and now the assessee has raised legal grounds challenging the limitation period for issue 5 Assessment Year: 2014-15 of notice u/s 148, which needs calculation as per sequence of events and the assessment order is silent regarding the date wise sequence, and in absence of any ground disputing the same before the Ld. first appellate authority , naturally , there is no adjudication on the issue. 9.1 As such in the interest of justice we remand the matter to the Ld. first appellate authority to consider the grounds of appeal
on merits of the case as per provisions of law, and we direct the assessee to file all documentary evidences in support of his contention and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 9.2 We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all legal issues are left open. However, before we conclude, we observe that in the instant case the assessee has acted in a way that disrupts or abuses the legal process, by making incorrect and baseless allegations, against the Ld. first appellate authority alleging non allowability of hearing opportunities, remaining totally non-compliant before the AO to nine separate notices issued u/s 142(1), ( as apparent from para 3.2 of assessment order), and raising last minute additional grounds which needs to be adjudicated on the basis of date wise sequence of events not readily ascertainable from the assessment order before us, which indicates towards deliberate delay by the assessee in completion of quasi-judicial proceedings, and we deem it a fit case to impose a token cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) on the assessed, payable to 6. Assessment Year: 2014-15 the “Prime Ministers National Relief Fund” within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order (evidence to be produced before JAO).
10. With the above observation the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication on merits.
11. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 06.04.2026 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963.