Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased an immovable property for ₹ 1,248,000 during the financial year 2018-19. The assessee was issued notices for reopening of assessment under Section 147 but did not appear or file returns. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 1,248,000. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not appear.
Held
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer, keeping all contentions open, to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing to decide on the reopening and merits.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment is invalid due to improper notice, and whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 142(1), 139(1), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 against the appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre (Delhi) (the learned CIT – A) on 18th of June 2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 7/11/2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determining the total assessed income at ₹ 1,248,000/– was dismissed.
Therefore the assessee is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal raising at least 10 grounds of appeal
but the substance of the appeal and its grounds are that assessee did not get sufficient opportunity to explain before the assessing officer and before the learned CIT – A with respect to the addition made under section 69 of the income tax act of ₹ 1,248,000.
3. Briefly stated the facts as per the assessment order shows that as per the information available with the income tax department that it has been found that during the financial year 2018 – 19 the assessee has purchased an immovable property for ₹ 1,248,000. The assessee was given notice under section 148, 142 (1), show cause notice under section 144 but the assessee did not apply. Assessee also did not file any return of income under section 139 (1) of the act as well as against the notice for reopening of the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the act. In view of the above facts the learned assessing officer passed an assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the income tax act on 7/11/2023 made an addition of ₹ 1,248,000 and assess the total income of the assessee at that amount.
4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of income tax appeals wherein the assessee was granted for opportunities of the hearing but the assessee did not turn up and therefore the learned CIT – A noted that assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal. He considered the grounds of appeal, assessment order and in paragraph No. 3.3 of his appellate order he confirmed the addition holding that the assessment order is well reasoned and comprehensive. Thus the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
5. Assessee aggrieved with the appellate order is in appeal before us. Assessee submitted that he is a small agriculturist by an occupation, did not have any formal education, coming from a regular background and has spent his entire life engaged in farming activities from his livelihood. Due to his literacy, Lake of exposure to administrative and legal matters he did not have any understanding of the income tax law. He is also not previously assessed to or has any time ever filed his return of income. He could not file the information before the learned lower authority because of the above facts. He further states that he is not aware of any of the notices or any of the orders. He stated that he has not got a fair opportunity of explaining this case. He in the affidavit submitted before us dated 8 August 2025, he undertakes to fully cooperate in the present proceedings and furnish all necessary facts and documents in support of his case if opportunity is granted.
Thus the learned authorized representative submitted that that notice under section 148 of the act dated 13 March 2023 is issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer and a copy of the notice is enclosed wherein it is signed by ITO Ward 1 Yadgir.. He relied upon the decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in Ramachandra Reddy Ravikumar versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax (2025) 178 taxmann.com 491 (Karnataka). Therefore the reopening of the assessment is invalid. Even otherwise on merits she submitted that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities.
The learned departmental standing counsel vehemently submitted that assessee has not appeared before the learned lower authorities and therefore the opportunity may be given to the assessee to raise all the issues before the learned assessing officer.
We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The assessee has raised that the notice is issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of faceless assessing officer and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court. The honourable High Court has also given the direction as per paragraph No. (v) of paragraph No. 10.
However the fact shows that the assessee did not appear before the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT – A. Therefore in the interest of justice, both the parties agree, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer keeping all issues and contentions of the assessee open including the reopening of the assessment on the issue of notice or any other issue of reopening of the assessment and also the merits of the case. The learned assessing officer is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then decide the issue on the issue of reopening of the assessment as well as on the merits.
In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of December , 2025.