Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment for AY 2011-12 was completed ex-parte under Sections 144 and 147 due to non-appearance, as the assessee claimed to have migrated to Dubai and could not respond to notices. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were affirmed by the CIT(A), leading the assessee to appeal before the ITAT, seeking an opportunity to present his case on merits.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is to be given a fresh opportunity to present all documents and details, and the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate order, passed due to the assessee's non-appearance, should be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh adjudication on merits with proper opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147, 148, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B R BASKARANSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
Date of Hearing – 29/01/2025 Date of Order - 30/01/2025
O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 25/03/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submission of appellant and has not given reasonable opportunity to explain the case. It is respectfully submitted that business of the appellant was mostly in cash and has made cash deposit in bank and made payment of expenses. Without prejudice to what is stated above, if addition has to be sustained, it should be reasonable and not total amount of cash deposited and credit card payment.
The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing claim of appellant regarding commodity income at 1% which was actually loss. It is respectfully submitted that reasonable opportunity was not given to explain the case.”
It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the documents as sought by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) and therefore the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. As per the assessee, he was staying in a tenanted premises, which he handed over to the landlord and migrated to Dubai in the year 2011-12 and thus could not respond to the notice issued under section 148 and also could not comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. We find that no details were also submitted before the learned CIT(A) and the additions made by the AO were affirmed vide impugned order. In the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorized Representative and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO.
In the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits and produce all the documents in support of his claim. Since in the present case, the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the learned CIT(A), we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. As the matter is being restored to the jurisdictional AO for adjudication on merits, the other grievance raised by the assessee in the present appeal does not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2025