Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a private limited company, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order adding Rs. 21,79,395/- due to non-response to a show cause notice. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex parte as the assessee failed to comply with notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's failure to furnish evidence and negligence. However, in the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified, and if an opportunity for a denovo assessment should be granted in the interest of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 10.07.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 11.03.2021.
The assessee is a private limited company, filed its return of income showing total income of Rs. 64,11,828/- for the relevant A.Y.
The A.O passed assessment order, making addition of Rs. 21,79,395/- as assessee has not responded to the show cause notice issued on 24.02.2021. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.
1. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition , ex parte as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) had passed their respective orders ex-parte without providing proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it was prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the A.O and Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte as the assessee failed to furnish evidence in support its claim. It is noted that the assessee has been negligent in pursuing the matter both before the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A). However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with all the notices issued by the A.O and furnish all relevant details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.