Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-filer, was subjected to reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act due to information about substantial bank deposits and property purchase. The assessee failed to appear before the AO and subsequently the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that due to the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities, the grounds and merits could not be considered. However, considering the circumstances including the assessee's health issues, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue for denovo consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's non-appearance before the AO and CIT(A) should lead to dismissal of the appeal on merits, or if the case should be remanded for denovo consideration due to extenuating circumstances.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 68, 69, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
Date of Hearing : 03-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 30/10/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17.
The assessee is a non-filer and based on the information received that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,31,51,000/- in his bank account and purchased an immovable property for a value of Rs. 2,57,00,000/-. the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Thereafter notice u/s. 148 was issued on 25/03/2021 for which the assessee filed his return of income on 17/02/2022 declaring a total income of Rs. 71,55,840/-. Inspite of several notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had not submitted any explanations for the source of the cash deposits and therefore the AO had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Similarly, the AO held that the total investment made by the assessee on the immovable property as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) on several occasions and only sought for adjournments on two occasions and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution.
As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not be able to appear before the AO because of the second wave of the covid pandemic. The Ld.AR further submitted that no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued before passing the order u/s. 147 and submitted that the assessment was not made within the period of limitation and therefore the Ld.AR sought for an opportunity to canvas all the points before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR further submitted that by oversight, the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) was not viewed and therefore prayed that a lenient view may be taken. The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee’s health was not good and undergone three bypass heart surgeries and therefore he was not able to concentrate any of the activities.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and also filed a submission about the service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The assessee has not filed his return of income and also not furnished sufficient evidences before the AO except the belated filing of return for the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. We have also considered the other grounds raised by the assessee and the said legal grounds and merits could not be considered by the Ld.CIT(A) for the non-appearance of the assessee before him. Even though the assessee had filed a case law compilation about the legal grounds and the merits of the case, we are not inclined to adjudicate the same since the assessee had not made any endeavour to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and establishes his case that the assessment order is bad in law. We have also considered the submission that the assessee has done three bypass heart surgeries and all the documents would be made available before the authorities apart from questioning the legality of the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A).
Considering the said facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration after hearing the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025.