Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2014-15 after the AO framed an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, adding Rs. 50,00,000/- for unexplained investment in property. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-response to notices, without adjudicating on merits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity and adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 21.04.2025, in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 24.03.2022.
The A.O reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had purchased immovable property but has not filed the return of income. The A.O in the assessment order has made an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- treating the investment in the property as unexplained. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to four notices issued. While dismissing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Del.)], without adjudicating the issues raised on merits.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was further submitted that Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit , one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate her 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. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the appeal on merit ground wise relying on the case of Multiplan India Ltd (supra). As the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicating the appeal on merit and the order is ex-parte, we are of the view that the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate her case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.