Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution, confirming an addition of Rs. 9,71,72,097/- made by the AO under Section 69C for alleged non-genuine purchases. The assessee contended that a crucial notice from the CIT(A) was not received, preventing them from presenting their case.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Ld. CIT(A) to serve the interests of justice. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)’] dated 23.01.2025 arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer (for short “the AO”) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) for the assessment year 2020-21.
The sole ground raised by the assessee is as under:
“1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal for alleged non-prosecution and without 2 providing proper opportunity of hearing and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.9,71,72,097/- made by the AO u/s.69C of the Act without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly.
The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO making an addition of Rs.9,71,72,097/- under section 69C of the Act on the ground of alleged non-genuine purchases.
4. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the order of the ld.CIT(A) to show that the same is an ex parte order on the ground of non-attendance/non-submission by the assessee. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had issued first notice on 10.11.2022, which was duly responded to, and adjournment was requested for. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter issued another notice on 2.2.2024 through email, which, however, did not come to the notice of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not furnish the requisite details. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) without giving any further opportunity dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has fair case on merit and may be given an opportunity to present his case before the ld.CIT(A).
The ld.DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the ld.representatives of both the parties and gone through the records. The ld. counsel has submitted that though, the necessary details relating to the aforesaid purchses were filed before the CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same and passed ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, we are of the view that the 3 interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to examine the issue afresh on the basis of explanations and details furnished by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce the relevant details and explanations before the ld.CIT(A) as and when called for.
With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 17th June, 2025.