Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a widow, failed to file her return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted cash deposits during demonetization and issued notices. Despite the assessee's AR appearing and providing bank account details, a mismatch was found with Form 26AS, leading to an addition of Rs. 45,78,920/- by the AO under Section 144.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. While the Tribunal did not agree to remand the matter back to the AO, it set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order for passing an ex-parte order. The appeal was restored to the Ld.CIT(A)'s file for adjudication after hearing the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 139(1), 250(6)
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, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 24.07.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2017-18.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order qua assessee without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he prays that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee. He also brought to our notice that assessment order has also been passed by the AO u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’) (best judgment assessment/exparte order) by order dated 30.11.2019 u/s.144 of the Act.
Therefore, he prays that matter may be restored back to the file of the AO by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC).
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a widow and didn’t file the return of income (RoI) for AY 2017-18 u/s.139(1) of the Act. The AO noted that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.2,45,000/- during the demonetization period. Therefore, he issued notice to the assessee and finding no reply, he sent a notice to inform her about his desire to pass a best judgment assessment. In response to the same, the Ld.AR of the assessee appeared and filed the details of the credits in the bank account amounting to Rs.54,57,431/-. However, the AO found some mismatch between Form 26AS and the amount credited in the bank account; and finding no proper reply from the assessee on this aspect, the AO made an addition of Rs.45,78,920/- by passing an order u/s.144 of the Act.
Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the appeal ex parte without going into the merits of the case. We don’t countenance such an action of the Ld.CIT(A); and taking note of the fact that assessee was represented before the AO, we are not inclined to grant the request of the assessee to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. However, taking note that Ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order without hearing the assessee, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as per sub-section 6 of section 250 of the Act; and since, there is negligence on the part of the assessee, cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed, which the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the Ld.CIT(A) and thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 08th day of January, 2025, in Chennai.