Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, confirming an addition of Rs. 13,35,000/- under Section 69A and taxed at a special rate as per Section 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with notices from the CIT(A) on multiple occasions. However, considering the assessee's plea of disability and the request for an opportunity, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) despite non-compliance with previous notices?
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bharatbhai Chavda, Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-75, Anu Society, Santosh Wadi, Ward-1(2)(1), Danteshwar, Vadodara-39004 Vadodara [PAN : AGRPC 9087 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parin S. Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri S.K. Agal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 02.02.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:-
“1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. JCIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 13,35,000/- u/s 69A ignoring submission of the appellant. 3. Ld. JCIT (A) erred in confirming action of AO to tax addition at special rate as per section 115BBE of the Act.”
On going through the record, we find that the assessee has not complied to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on seven occasions which led to passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte.
Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not comply to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) owing to disability and prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance would be made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR objected in principle. However, keeping in view the facts on record, we find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall comply to all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.04.2025