Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17, stemming from an ex-parte assessment by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 144, which involved an addition of ₹78,58,970 under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). The appeal was initially barred by limitation by 216 days, but the Tribunal condoned the delay. Both lower authorities decided the case ex parte as the assessee failed to appear.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities decided the case ex parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the learned AO. The AO was directed to re-decide the matter after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
1. Whether ex-parte assessments and appeals by lower authorities are valid without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 2. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal to the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 31.03.2024 for the AY 2016-17.
At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 216 days, for which condonation petition is filed by the assessee. At the time of hearing, the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were strongly opposed by the Ld. DR. Keeping in view, the submissions made by the A.R. and the judicial pronouncement that a case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.
The learned AO passed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, vide order dated 26-3-2022, when assessee did not furnish any information or details before the learned AO by making an addition of ₹78,58,970 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The learned CIT (A) affirmed the same on the basis of facts available on record that too exparte. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be well served if the appeals of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned AO. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the learned AO with a direction to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025.