Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 7.8.2018 of the CIT(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:-
1. The impugned ex-parte Appellate order dated: 07-08-2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Bangalore-7 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte Appellant Rs. 3,32,42,060/- order by rejecting of an application filed under Rule 46A for admission of the relevant documents, without providing an opportunity to the Appellant of being heard to meet the principles of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to the Ground No.2, the Ld. CIT(A) Same as above ought to have passed the Appellate order on merits of the case based on the written submissions of the Appellant filed on 24-07-2018 before the Ld. CIT(A) .
Without prejudice to the Ground No.2 and 3 above the Ld. . Same as above 4. CIT(A)has not providedsufficient opportunity to the Appellant of being heard after filing of written submissions dtd: 27-04-2018 since the Ld.CIT(A) has not posted the case for further hearing of the Appeal. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. Rs. 3,32,42,060/- Total tax effect
At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessment order in this case is passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. In appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed various additional evidence along with application for admission of the same, which were not admitted by the CIT(Appeals) observing that non-compliance of notice and non-production of details of evidence during the assessment proceedings was a deliberate act on the part of assessee. The CIT(Appeals) therefore observed that additional evidence filed by assessee cannot be admitted. Further regarding the addition made by the AO, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee has not participated in the assessment proceedings even after sufficient opportunity of hearing and hence he confirmed the order of the AO.
The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have admitted the additional evidence which he failed to do so defeating the principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) has to be vacated so as to give a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee to furnish necessary details for the purpose of assessment.
The ld. DR submitted that in spite of sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee, the assessee failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, as such additional evidence was not admitted by the CIT(Appeals) which has to be confirmed and order of CIT(Appeals) has to be upheld.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the assessment order passed by the AO is an ex parte order and on this count the assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) failed to admit the same on the reason that assessee failed to produce these evidence before the AO. In this case, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice by not giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Being so, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh decision with a direction to the assessee to file all necessary evidence in support of its case before the AO and the AO has to consider the same in true letter and spirit and pass fresh assessment order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With these observations, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of March, 2022.