Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13, with a delay of 309 days. The AO had reopened assessment after information of a Rs. 17.58 lakhs bank deposit, making an ex-parte addition of Rs. 10.24 lakhs under Section 144. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and proper notice was not served. Finding that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6), the Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing and the liberty to raise objections against the re-opening of assessment.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of ex-parte assessment under Section 144; compliance of CIT(A) with mandatory procedures under Section 250(6) when dismissing appeals for want of prosecution; source of bank deposits.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 05.02.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13.
The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 309 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay contending therein that impugned order A.Y.2012-13 2 was passed ex-parte which was not in the knowledge of the assessee. We find that ld. CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and no proper notice was served upon the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out that AO got an information that assessee has made deposit of Rs.17,58,000/- in his bank account maintained with HDFC Bank during financial year 2011-12. The AO has reopened the assessment and initiated an enquiry qua the source of deposit and ultimately, he made an addition of Rs.10,24,000/- by way of an ex-parte order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. Section 144 would contemplate that it authorizes the AO to pass an assessment order on the basis of best of his judgement. Further, we find that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act provides that ld. CIT (Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in respect of her conclusion on those points. A.Y.2012-13 3 The ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to follow this mandatory procedure, hence, her order is not sustainable. Since an error crept in the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) but explanation of the assessee qua the source of cash is also not available in the assessment order and CIT (Appeals) would have to call for a remand report from the AO, therefore, instead of instituting proceeding at two difference places, namely, the CIT (Appeals) for adjudication of appeal and submitting a remand report by the AO, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of AO. Thus, we set aside both the impugned orders and restore this issue to the file of AO. The ld. AO shall provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee before re-adjudicating the issue. The assessee will be at liberty to raise objections against re-opening of the assessment. With the above observation, this appeal is allowed.
In the result, appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on 29.07.2025.