Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was against the order of CIT(A) which confirmed additions on account of unexplained gold and silver jewellery. The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities, and the CIT(A) confirmed the additions without a speaking order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to pass a speaking order even in ex-parte proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by law, especially when the assessee did not appear? Whether the matter should be remanded for denovo adjudication to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing?
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 132, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 28.02.2025 of CIT(A), Pune-12 passed u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 22.03.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.
When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of record, we proceed to adjudicate the case. We on perusal of the impugned order notice that assessee failed to appear on the dates of hearing on which few fell during covid-19 pandemic outbreak prevailed across the country. Ld. Departmental Representative did not objected if the grounds raised in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and was subjected to search u/s.132 of the Act conducted on 02.05.2013 along with Mantri Group of Jalna and their family members. Return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 filed on 17.02.2015 declaring income of Rs.1,01,496/-. Learned Assessing Officer (AO) carried out the assessment proceedings after validly serving statutory notices and thereafter made the additions totaling to Rs.8,92,343/- and assessed income at Rs.9,93,840/-. Against the assessment order dated 22.03.2016 assessee preferred before ld.CIT(A) but then almost for six years various dates of hearing were fixed but assessee failed to appear resulting into confirming of addition towards unexplained gold jewellery at Rs.5,12,513/- and unexplained silver articles valuing Rs.2,45,830/-. Assessee has challenged the total addition of Rs.7,58,343/- before this Tribunal but failed to make any explanation. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has stated that gold and silver articles accumulated for the last fifty years since assessee’s marriage and other festive occasions.
4. We notice that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and has also not dealt with CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.1994 about the gold jewellery treated to be explained and not to be seized in case of search proceedings. Though the assessee has failed to make any representation before the lower authorities but still ld.CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. For this proposition, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order.
Under the given facts and circumstances and there being no objection raised by the ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it proper to restore the issue raised on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication for which reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 16th day of June, 2025.