Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Revathi Borewells, failed to file its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information of cash deposits and made an addition of Rs. 1,01,83,100/-, completing the assessment ex-parte. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders are sustainable when the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 04.12.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.
147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 26.03.2022.
There is a delay of 544 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.
The assessee is a firm and has not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The A.O on the basis of information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.1,01,83,100/- into its current account, reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, made addition u/s. 69A of the Act assessing total income of Rs.1,01,83,100/- as the assessee had failed to explain the cash deposits. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued.
The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) contended that the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate its case. It was therefore submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present her case before the A.O.
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
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 did not respond to the notices issued and failed to furnish requisite details. 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 its 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 30th day of October, 2025 at Chennai.