Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order that dismissed their earlier appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee had initially declared agricultural income of Rs. 24,66,711/-, but the Assessing Officer treated the entire gross receipts as bogus and made an addition of Rs. 46,01,759/-, treating it as income from undisclosed sources.
Held
The Tribunal found that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's absence. Considering the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to the assessee's absence and without considering all facts, should be set aside and remanded back for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Javed Akbar Sayyad, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune. Flat No.09, Silver Nest, Yadgar City, Market Yard, Pune- 413102. PAN : AUCPS0699B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date of hearing : 08.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.
There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Ld. DR has not raised any objection to condone the delay, therefore we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his Return of Income on 06-02-2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,19,830/- and agricultural income of Rs.24,66,711/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, appellant has submitted the required information along with his explanation with all documentary evidences to justify agricultural income, however the Assessing Officer by pointing out certain defects in the bills issued by fruits vendors. Thereby treated entire gross receipts on account of agricultural income as bogus and accordingly made an addition of Rs.46,01,759/- The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the taxable income at Rs.48,21,590/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,19,830/-. The above assessed income includes gross receipts of Rs.46,01,759/- claimed by the assessee as agricultural sale proceeds treated as income from undisclosed sources.
4. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR further submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed an ex-parte order wherein he has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer treating entire gross receipts on account of agricultural income as bogus and accordingly confirmed the addition of Rs.46,01,759/- without considering the fact that the agricultural income was only Rs.24,66,711/-. It was submitted by Ld. AR that out of six notices, four were issued during Covid-19 period and only two effective notices were issued by LD. CIT(A)/NFAC which could not be seen by the assessee since he is not regularly checking his email, accordingly it was requested by Ld. AR that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may kindly be set-aside and the matter be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal again after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue submitted before us that despite due service of notices of hearing the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, Ld. DR requested before the Bench to confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte since the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking