Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) NFAC. The assessee claimed they did not receive any notice for a hearing and their appeal was dismissed without considering the material on record.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not received any communication/notice u/s.250 of the Act, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper consideration. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a fresh opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating all grounds of appeal, including those related to reassessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR
Date of hearing : 26.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश/ORDER Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC is bad in law, illegal, besides being in violation of the principle of natural justices & equity, as having been passed without affording any fresh opportunity of being heard by issuance of notice of hearing as mandated under sub-section (1) of section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('Act' in short).
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred in not adjudicating and deciding ground no.1 challenging the legality and validity of re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act; as such liable to be quashed and set aside.
The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in denying justice, without any justification. As a consequence, addition of Rs.22,83,804/- on account of rejection of short term capital loss on sale of shares so made by the A.O may kindly be deleted.
4. The Ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming an addition of rs.3,82,000/- on account of alleged cash deposit in a bank so made by the A.O may kindly be deleted.
The Ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming an addition of Rs.11,77,678/- on account of unsecured loans u/s.68 of the Act so made by the A.O may kindly be deleted.
3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has not received any communication/notice u/s.250 of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A), has dismissed the appeal of assessee, agreeing with the view of the Assessing Officer and without considering the material available on record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication 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.