Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income and a notice under Section 148 was issued for reopening of assessment due to an unexplained investment in a property. The Assessing Officer made an addition and levied penalty. The assessee challenged these orders before the CIT(A), but the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed for non-prosecution due to missed notices should be restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in the interest of natural justice?
Sections Cited
148, 143(3), 147, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
1. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 06.06.2024 and 21.06.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The registry has noted delay of 174 days in filing the appeals.
Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeals for adjudication.
Brief facts are as follows:-
The assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 22.07.2013 admitting total income of Rs.10,06,310/-. Notice u/s.148 was issued on 28.08.2019 for reopening of assessment.
The reason for reopening of assessment was assessee purchased a property jointly with his brother, but assessee failed to prove source of investment made in the property at T.Nagar, Chennai before the AO. Therefore, AO made addition of Rs.62,54,875/- towards unexplained investment and also levied penalty @ 100% amounting to Rs.40,96,611/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 05.02.2022.
Assessee further challenged the both ex-parte orders of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who proceeded ex-parte and confirmed the orders of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeals before us.
Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has sent the notices, however, the assessee missed to receive notices hence the appeals were not prosecuted before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he prayed that the assessee may be provided an adequate and proper representation time to file evidence and documents, if any, to substantiate his case before the CIT(A). The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in these cases and prayed for dismissal of the both appeals.
Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices for the reasons stated above. Surprisingly, we further note that while disposing of the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held as ‘ appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as not maintainable’. For not prosecuting appeal or for non-appearance by the assessee, an appeal cannot be held to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the both appeals are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. counsel, who appeared also assured the bench that he will ensure that the assessee will prosecute appeal proceedings diligently.