Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was directed against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had stated that the assessee failed to file any evidence to contradict the AO's findings despite several opportunities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was issued only one notice by the FAA and had responded to it, requesting more time. However, no further opportunity was granted. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the FAA for a fresh examination.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case before passing the appellate order.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.11.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.
2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has confirmed the addition made by the AO stating that the assessee has failed to file any evidence to contradict the findings of the AO despite giving numerous opportunities.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the FAA had issued only one notice of hearing dated 01.01.2025 directing the assessee to furnish written submissions on or before 09.01.2025. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed written submissions along with certain documents and had also requested three weeks’ time to compile and submit the remaining documents. However, without granting any further opportunity, the FAA proceeded to pass the appellate order confirming the additions made by the AO on the ground that the assessee had failed to file any evidence to contradict the findings of the AO despite giving numerous opportunities. The Ld.AR submitted that the FAA had in fact issued only one notice, to which the assessee had duly complied by filing his response, and thereafter no further notice or opportunity was granted to the assessee to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed that, in the 3 -: interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee for proper representation of his case.
The Ld.DR was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld.AR submitted that the FAA had issued only one notice of hearing directing the assessee to furnish written submissions, in response to which the assessee filed written submissions along with certain documents and had also sought three weeks’ time to compile and submit the remaining documents. However, the FAA proceeded to pass the appellate order confirming the additions made by the AO on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence to contradict the findings of the AO despite giving numerous opportunities. From the material placed on record, it appears that the assessee had responded to the notice issued by the FAA and had also requested additional time to submit further documents, but no further opportunity appears to have been granted before passing the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the FAA with a direction to examine the issue afresh after 4 -: affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th March, 2026 at Chennai.