Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal as duplicate. The assessee, who is physically challenged, argued that her submissions were not considered and the Ld.CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without application of mind. She also claimed that the AO did not provide a proper opportunity during assessment.
Held
The Tribunal noted that no order of the Ld.CIT(A) disposing of the appeal was placed on record, and the reason for dismissal (duplicate appeal) could not be sustained. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and, considering her disability, set aside the assessment for de novo assessment by the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as duplicate without proper consideration of evidence, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity by the AO.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 13.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2017-18.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the AO had passed an ex parte order, though he had mentioned in the caption of the assessment order that it was passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). According to the Ld.AR, similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an impugned cryptic order of two lines by stating it to be duplicate appeal and therefore, dismissed it. This assertion of the Ld.CIT(A) has been contested by the assessee.
According to the Ld.AR, assessee suffers from impaired speech & ailments because of which she is confined to wheel-chair. And before the Ld CIT(A), assessee had filed responses/written submissions dated 18.08.2020 & 19.01.2021 along with Annexures, which relevant evidences has not been considered at all by the Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating the grounds of appeal/passing the impugned cryptic order.
1. Therefore, according to him, there is non-application of mind on the part of Ld CIT(A) while passing the impugned order, which vitiates the action of Ld CIT(A). Further, according to him, even the AO has not given proper opportunity to assessee to substantiate her claim regarding addition of SBNs of Rs.38,50,000/- as well as Rs.15,00,000/- [Total Rs.53,50,000/-] given an opportunity before AO, the assessee undertakes to file the nature and source of SBNs deposited during AY 2017-18 by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) The Ld.DR couldn’t controvert with the submission of the Ld.AR.
4. In the aforesaid back ground, we note that the assessee has filed written submissions along with supporting evidences before the Ld CIT(A), challenging the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Salem, dated 18.12.2019. But, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic order stating that he has already disposed off the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1071/94887(1) dated 13.12.2024, which impugned action has been contested by assessee as erroneous and based on “mistake of fact”. In this regard, no order of Ld CIT(A) disposing of the appeal as observed by Ld CIT(A) is placed on records. Therefore, the impugned action of Ld CIT(A) can’t be countenanced. Be that as it may, since assessee has asserted that she didn’t file any duplicate appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the reason given by the Ld.CIT(A) can’t be sustained and therefore, it is set aside. At this stage, we note that assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO during the assessment proceedings and note that assessee is confined to wheel chair & impaired speech and so is disabled, therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we set aside the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all relevant documents to substantiate her claim regarding addition of SBNs of Rs.38,50,000/- as well as Rs.15,00,000/- (AY 2017-18) Rameshlal Sangitha [Total Rs.53,50,000/-] i.e. assessee has undertaken to file the nature and source of SBNs deposited during AY 2017-18. The AO to frame de novo assessment after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of June, 2025, in Chennai.