Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AY 2017-18. The appeal was delayed by 80 days, but the ITAT condoned the delay. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to delay, and the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 without considering the evidence provided by the assessee.
Held
The ITAT, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the documents produced by the assessee and provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard, with the assessee also directed to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer given the ex-parte assessment.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY
O R D E R
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.11.2024, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.
At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 80 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessment order has also been passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144 of the Act. Further the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has provided Bank Statements, Audited Books of Accounts, Ledger Copies and Cash Book to substantiate its claim, however, without considering the same the Assessing Officer made the addition. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld.AO, so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld.AO.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of ld. AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the issue needs to be re-verified at the level of AO. A perusal of impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. A further perusal of the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer shows that the assessee was unable to furnish the details as required during the course of assessment proceedings. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction that the Assessing Officer shall verify the documents to be produced by the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee shall