Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual dealing in broiler chickens, deposited cash of Rs. 33,13,160/- but did not file a return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO assessed the income based on the deposit and estimated business income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to a 66-day delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without deciding the issue on merits. To adhere to the principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.
Key Issues
Whether the orders passed ex-parte by the AO and CIT(A) were justified, and if the assessee should be provided an opportunity to present their case on merits.
Sections Cited
144, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ 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, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 23.10.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 14.11.2019.
The assessee is an individual, dealing in broiler chickens. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs.33,13,160/- in his saving bank account maintained with Axis Bank in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs), but has not filed return of income for the relevant Assessment Year.
The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for return of income. However, the assessee neither filled return of income in response to the notices nor complied with notices issued during assessment proceeding. As a result, the A.O passed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act, making addition of cash deposit of Rs.33,13,160/- and estimating business income at Rs.20,43,371/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with delay in filling appeal of 66 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal ex-parte .
The Ld. A.R has contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee either before A.O or before Ld. CIT(A) and both the orders have been passed ex-pare and therefore, the case may be remitted back to the A.O for fresh consideration in interest of justice.
The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessment order has been passed Ex- parte and Ld CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal for delay of 66 days in filling appeal. The Ld. A.R has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore the case may be remanded back to the A.O for adjudication on merits. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the A.O subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for his 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 21st March, 2025.