Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the scrap business, did not file a return of income. Information revealed the sale of an immovable property for Rs. 36,16,000 and purchase of another for Rs. 2,40,00,000. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made additions for short-term capital gains and unexplained investment, leading to an assessed income of Rs. 1,30,13,320 against a returned income of Rs. 2,90,120.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing, issuing notices in quick succession. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee deserve to be adjudicated on merit.
Sections Cited
139, 147, 148, 142(1), 144, 144B, 250, 69B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH,
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, J.M.:- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21.03.2025 which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 31.03.2022 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC In dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.
2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A). NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principle of "audi alteram partem."
3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming the income assessed by the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 1,30,13,320/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,90,120/- without appreciating the correct facts of the case.
4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A). NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,23,200/- by calculating 20% of the total value of the immovable property of Rs. 2,76,16,000/- on account of short term capital gain without perusing the submissions made during assessment proceedings. 5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- on account of unexplained source of income for purchase of immovable property u/s 69B without appreciating the submissions made and the döcümentary evidences provided by the appellant during the course of the impugned assessment proceedings. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant by simply concluding that the appellant was not able to substantiate the source of the unexplained income and no documentary evidences against the additions made by the Ld. AO have been provided by the appellant. 7. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the appellate order in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has passed the ex parte appellate order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. 9.That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal
at any time before or at the time of hearing.
10. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 11.Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.
Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of scrap and has not furnished return of income under section 139 of the IT act. On the basis of information available on record that the assessee has sold immovable property for ₹ 36,16,000 and purchased immovable property for rupees 2,40,00,000/-and has not furnished his return of income, so has not offered any income for taxation with regard to above transactions during the period under consideration . Therefore the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the IT act and notice under section 148 and 142 (1) of the IT act respectively were issued to the assessee . In response to notice under section 148 of the IT act the assessee furnished return of income declaring income of ₹ 2,90,120/- & also furnished some information. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee the assessing officer completed the assessment proceedings under section 147 rws 144 rws 144 B of the IT act and vide assessment order dated 31-03- 2022 determined income at ₹ 1,30,13,320/- as against the income returned by the assessee at ₹ 2,90,120/-. The above assessed income includes additions on account of, estimated short term capital gain of ₹ 7,23,200 on sale of immovable property of ₹ 36,16,000/- and addition of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- under section 69B of the IT act as unexplained investment towards purchase of immovable property.
Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee remained absent learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.
We have heard learned counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard we find that learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. In this regard it was the sole prayer of the assessee that one final opportunity may kindly be provided to him to appear before the learned CIT appeal so that he can substantiate the grounds of appeal. In this regard We find that learned CIT appeal has issued last two notices of hearing to the assesse ie on 03-03-2025 & on 11-03-2025 in a time period of 07 days, which cannot be said to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. We also find that the assessee sought adjournment on earlier 2 occasions which proves that the assessee was responding to the notices issued by learned CIT appeal however due to issue of back-to-back 2 notices of hearing in a short span of 07 days the assessee could not furnish any reply.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it fit to set aside the ex-parte order passed by learned CIT appeal and remand the matter back to the file of learned CIT appeal with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law on all the grounds raised before him after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by learned CIT appeal in this regard and to produce relevant submissions documents and evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext otherwise learned CIT appeal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. The effective ground no 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Since the matter has been remanded back to the file of learned CIT appeal for deciding the appeal afresh as per fact and law the other grounds becomes infructuous hence not adjudicated. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 23rd day of December, 2025.