Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring income, which was processed by the CPC resulting in a higher total income due to adoption of speculative income twice. The assessee was asked to submit a rectification petition but failed to do so. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) passed the order ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principle of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Sanjay Bagaria,………………………………………Appellant Block-A, 200, Bangur Avenue, Near Bigpark, Kolkata-700055 [PAN:ADVPB4070D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Complex, Ultadanga, Maniktala, Civic Centre, Kolkata-700054 Appearances by: Shri Anil Kochar, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: April 9, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 7th November, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2020-21.
Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 08.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.16,68,810/- . The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the 1 (A.Y. 2020-2021) Sanjay Bagaria CPC and the total income was computed at Rs.21,53,680/-. The difference in the income returned and the income computed by the CPC was on account of variation under the head income from business or profession. The income under the head was declared at Rs.7,35,073/- which has been computed by the CPC at Rs.12,99,939/-. The difference of Rs.4,84,866/- was on account of adoption of income from speculative activity twice, firstly under the head “Gross Receipts’ and secondly under the had ‘Turnover from Speculative Activity’. The assessee was asked to submit a rectification petition in respect of error in filing up the return, but it was not done by the assessee by uploading the proposed rectified ITR as the same was not being accepted at the CPC site.
At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before the Bench that the ld. CIT(Appeals) passed the ex-parte order without going into merit of the case and without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, ld. Counsel pleaded to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for deciding it afresh.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to submit the rectified ITR. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2020-2021) Sanjay Bagaria
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) carefully considered Form 35, statement of facts and the grounds of appeal raised. Four opportunities were given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to furnish the details or submission substantiating the grounds raised along with the material evidence. Since the details required for adjudicating the grounds including the rectification order under section 154 have not been uploaded by the assessee and no documentary evidence in support of his claim submitted, the CIT(Appeals) concluded that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Keeping in view this factual position pointed out by the ld. D.R. from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), I am of the view that proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard cannot be said to have been (A.Y. 2020-2021) Sanjay Bagaria given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. There is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. I, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to Assessing Officer for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to make due compliance before the Assessing Officer and extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the Assessing Officer to dispose of the appeal afresh expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/05/2025.