Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, which had upheld additions of ₹2,35,00,000/- under Section 68 and ₹1,59,05,939/- under Section 69, respectively, made by the AO. The assessee failed to appear before both the AO and CIT(A) despite opportunities, leading to the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. Before the ITAT, the assessee contended that it was denied reasonable opportunity by the CIT(A).
Held
The ITAT observed that the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to submit evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the assessee is required to furnish all relevant documents and cooperate fully.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity to present evidence before the lower appellate authorities (AO and CIT(A)) and whether the ex-parte orders confirming additions under Sections 68 and 69 were justified without such opportunity.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 144, 68, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench:
Both the appeals were filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in brevity ‘the learned CIT (A)’], order passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity, ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 on dated 30/09/2024 for both the orders. The impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Assessment unit, Income Tax Department (in brevity, ‘the learned AO’),
When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed. Considering the merits of the case, both the appeals are proceed to dispose off after hearing the ld. DR on ex-parte qua for the assessee.
We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and considered 3. the material available on record. Both the appeals for A.Ys. 2015- 16 and 2016-17 were proceeded ex parte before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A). Despite several opportunities granted by the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to furnish the required evidences. Consequently, the ld. AO made additions of ₹2,35,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 and ₹1,59,05,939/- under section 69 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). However, after providing reasonable opportunities, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte orders, thereby upholding the impugned assessment orders. In its appeal before the ITAT, the assessee has, inter alia, raised a ground (Ground No. 4) alleging that reasonable opportunity was not afforded by the Ld. CIT(A).
Since the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to submit evidence before the revenue authorities in support of its case, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence before the ld. CIT(A), who shall consider the same in accordance with law and
Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the Result, the appeal of assessee bearing & 2670/Kol/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 26th September, 2025 at Kolkata.