Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order treating it as an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, stating the assessee was not interested in prosecuting it, despite issuing several notices. The assessee argued that a reply was filed on 24/03/2025, which was not considered before the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 26/03/2025.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the assessee's reply filed on 24/03/2025, making it not based on the submissions. Therefore, the order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's reply and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
201(1), 201(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of Ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai dated 26/03/2025 in respect of A.Y. 2022-23.
The brief facts of the case are that the AO based on the survey observed that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source and therefore passed an order u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) by treating the assessee as an assessee in default. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised several grounds on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal even though five notices were issued and served on them. As against the said ex-parte order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that even though the assessee had not looked into the earlier four notices issued, but filed their reply to the notice dated 18/03/2025 on 24/03/2025 and therefore the order of the Ld.CIT(A) without considering the said reply is bad in law. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the written submissions as well as the e-proceedings acknowledgement dated 24/03/2025 in response to the notice dated 18/03/2025. The Ld.AR therefore submitted that the Ld.CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not shown any interest in prosecuting the appeal is against the facts of the case and prayed an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A).
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have perused the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in which in paragraph no. 4.1, he had furnished a tabular column by showing the various dates of the notices and the remarks. From the said tabular column, we notice that the Ld.CIT(A) had granted five opportunities to the assessee. But for the last notice dated 18/03/2025, the assessee had sent a reply through the portal and also filed the acknowledgement for having filed the said documents. Even though the Ld.CIT(A) had passed the order on 26/03/2025, he has not considered the said reply filed by the assessee on 24/03/2025. Therefore the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not based on the submissions made by the assessee on 24/03/2025.
Therefore We are inclined to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the appeal on merits and decide the same after hearing the assessee. It is open to the assessee to file the relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal on merits.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2025.