Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2017-18 and was selected for limited scrutiny regarding cash deposits during demonetization and income from house property. The AO made additions of Rs.6,79,500/- and Rs.5,60,000/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but an ex-parte order was passed due to non-compliance, dismissing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 264 days in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits, solely on technical grounds of non-compliance. For justice and fair play, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case due to alleged non-compliance by the assessee, and if a remand for fresh adjudication on merits is appropriate.
Sections Cited
142(1), 143(2), 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant 8, Mansarala Lane, Khiderpore, Kolkata – 700023. [PAN: ALHPS2735G] vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Navans Shah, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : May 15, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : May 21, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’].
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 264 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of such delay explaining reasons for the delay. We, after perusing the petition made in the application, satisfy that there were bona fide and sufficient reasons for such delay. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 11.01.2018 for the assessment year 2017- 18 by declaring total income of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, the case of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in relation to (i) cash deposits made during the demonetization period and (ii) income from house property. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued to the assessee and the assessee complied to the notices and submitted his reply. However, the Assessing Officer did not satisfy with the submissions made by the assessee and made the addition of Rs.6,79,500/- cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.5,60,000/- on account of municipal tax payment made by the assessee. Accordingly, both the amounts were added the total income of the assessee and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance of the assessee during the appellate proceedings on consecutives dates as fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer solely on the ground of non-compliance.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR is that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was an ex parte order and the assessee did not get proper opportunity to represent his case. The ld. AR stated that now the case of the assessee is a fit case where the assessee can get relief if another opportunity may be provided and prayed that one final opportunity may be given to the assessee in order to substantiate the claim of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently opposed to the above prayer of the ld. AR stating that although ample opportunities have been Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh provided on various dates but the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee without having any other alternative. Hence, at this stage, the appeal may be dismissed in limine.
We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that in the present case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte without going into merits of the case by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. We note that the assessee could not represent his case properly and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the technical ground of non-compliance rather than on the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interests of justice and fair play, we deem it proper to remand the whole issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the matter on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to strictly comply with the notices which will be issued by the ld. CIT(A) as and when asked for without any fail and in case, the assessee fails to appear in remand proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) may pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of materials available on record.
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.