Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals against the penalty order for AY 2015-16 were heard. The assessee argued that the case was proceeded ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) due to non-furnishing of documentary evidence regarding cash deposits. The assessee requested restoration to the AO to present evidence.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed ex-parte as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for cash deposits to both the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-adjudication after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment and penalty proceedings should be re-opened for the assessee to furnish documentary evidence not submitted earlier, and if so, what direction should be given to the AO.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.06.2025 for the AY 2015-16. The penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. AO vide order dated 22.09.2022.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the case of the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. AO as well as before CIT (A) though the assessee attended the proceedings before CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT (A) noted that the evidences were not furnished by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, these appeals may be
The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessment was framed ex-parte when the assessee did not furnish before the ld. AO the documentary evidences/ proofs in respect of cash deposited during the year in the bank account. Similarly, before the ld. CIT (A) the assessee did not furnish evidences finding of which has been recorded by the ld. CIT (A) in para 6.5.3 of the appellate order. Consequently, we restore the issue to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after taking into account the evidences and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard the assessee. The appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.
In case of penalty appeal of the assessee in , therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) would also stand quashed as the very foundation of levy of penalty in the case of the assessee would not more survive. Further, the ld. AO is at liberty to re-initiate the penalty proceeding afresh, if required.
Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.