Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) that confirmed additions made by the AO. The CIT(A)'s order was passed due to the assessee's non-compliance with statutory notices and failure to file written submissions. The AO had made additions of Rs. 3,75,13,000/- and Rs. 71,47,791/- under Section 68.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions based on non-submission of written arguments without adequately addressing the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order confirming additions without adjudicating on the merits of the case, especially when the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2017-18 George Maijo Industries Private Assistant Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, No.28, Apex Plaza, Corporate Ward-2(1), 5, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AACCG6145R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1063233159(1) dated 23.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 The assessee was called absent in this case. 3.0 The Ld.DR narrated the brief facts of the case. It was stated that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to statutory notices. The Ld.DR informed that the Ld.AO had made addition of Rs.3,75,13,000/- u/s 68 along with another addition of Rs.71,47,791/-. It was submitted that as per para 4 of the order of Ld.CIT(A), no written submission was filed by the appellant during appellate proceedings before him. The Ld.DR fairly conceded that as it’s a case of an ex- parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) a decision qua its remission back to the Ld.CIT(A) can be taken. 4.0 We have heard the submissions made by the Ld.DR in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. The principal issue involves addition of Rs.3,75,13,000/- u/s 68 along with another addition of Rs.71,47,791/- by the Ld.AO. We have noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on the premise of non-submission of any written submissions by the assessee. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of no compliance by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched adequately upon merits of the case. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we set aside the assailed order and remit the matter back to Page - 2 - of 3 Ld.CIT(A) for fresh readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee shall make necessary compliances and any deviation would be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 4th , Sept-2025 at Chennai.