Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-persuasion. The Assessee claimed they did not receive notices and had a reasonable cause for not responding. The Tribunal noted the Assessee was given multiple opportunities but failed to comply.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Assessee had been awarded six opportunities to be heard but failed to comply with notices or provide rebuttals. Despite the Assessee's plea for another opportunity, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified, and whether the matter should be remanded for de-novo assessment given the Assessee's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
68, 156
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR.BRR KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT (Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chandrakalaben Sandip Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shah, Ward-1(2)(1), 3, Jayeshwar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Railway Crossing, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. [PAN No. AZXPS5575J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri D.K Parikh, AR Respondent by: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 O R D E R Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 18.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
The learned CIT(Appeals)/NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE | NFAC] DELHI has grievously erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte on the ground of non persuasion though on facts and as per grounds, the reassessment was also illegal and without jurisdiction. The appellant was inclined to argue the appeal but due to reasons stated in the application for Asst.Year 2013-14 - 2– condonation and affidavit, the appellant had no knowledge of the notices.
2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Id CIT(A)/NFAC further erred in law and on facts in holding that as the appellant could not respond to notices, the order passed by Id AO did not call for any interference. On facts of the appellants case, the addition made and reassessment order passed ought to be quashed. It be so held now. 3. The Id CIT(A)/NFAC grievously erred in law and on facts in passing an exparte order and consequently, dismissing the appeal in toto since the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not being able to respond to notices issued on her on her email and no physical notices were served. It be so held now and order passed by Id CIT(A)/NFAC be cancelled or set aside. 4. On the facts of the appellants case and considering legal position, the addition made by ld AO u/s 68 is uncalled for and against sanction of law. It may be so held now. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 7,28,800 when the capital gain on sale of shares based on documents furnished was genuine and hence exemption claimed ought to be allowed. It be directed to be allowed now. 6. Without prejudice to above, the Demand of Rs. 2,81,711/-raised by the Id AO is illegal and unenforceable in law in view of section 156 of the I.T Act as demand notice is signed even before passing [signing) of the assessment order. It be so held no and order passed and demand raised be cancelled 7. The appellant further prays that given a chance, the appellant shall fully respond to notices that may be issued by the CIT(A) /NFAC in the best interest of justice so that merits of the appellant can be finally decided. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds at the 3. On going through the record, I find that the assessee was awarded six opportunities of hearing on several occasions, but the assessee failed to comply with the notices and has not brought anything on record to rebut the finding of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the Asst.Year 2013-14 - 3– appeal of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. I find that assessee has not even complied before the Assessing Officer, hence in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.