Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a return of income, leading the AO to issue a notice under Section 142(1) and later pass an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was also dismissed ex-parte due to lack of documentary evidence.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted additional evidence in the form of Jamabandi copies, bank statements, and affidavits, which were not produced before the lower authorities. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders below, the Tribunal set aside both orders and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the Tribunal should admit additional evidence not produced before the lower authorities and whether the ex-parte assessment order and appellate order should be set aside for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stay Application No. 20/CHD/2025 in �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Baljinder Kaur, Vs The ITO, W/o Bhagwan Singh, Ward – Sunam, Village – Harigarh, PO-Raidharana, Sangrur. Distt.Sangrur (Punjab). �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ENNPK8970H अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Baljinder Kaur, Vs The ITO, W/o Bhagwan Singh, Ward – Sunam, Village – Harigarh, PO-Raidharana, Sangrur. Distt.Sangrur (Punjab). �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ENNPK8970H अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kanav Goyal, Advocate for Shri Paras Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against
SA 20/CHD/2025 and ITA 802/CHD/2025 2 the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) dated 29.10.2024 passed for assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee has filed the present Stay Application in this appeal pleading therein that outstanding demand be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
In response to the notice of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee seeks an adjournment in the Stay Application, however, we were not satisfied with the reasons assigned by him for seeking the adjournment, hence, his request was rejected.
With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. On perusal of the record, it was found that a very small issue is being involved in the present appeal, therefore, instead of deciding the Stay Application, we took up the appeal itself for adjudication.
The brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file return of income, hence, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued by the AO on 08.03.2018. It revealed to the AO that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.30,29,000/- in her bank account
SA 20/CHD/2025 and ITA 802/CHD/2025 3 maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, out of which cash of Rs.15,00,000/- has been deposited during demonetization period. Therefore, the AO directed the assessee to file the return and explain the source of this deposit, but the assessee did not respond to the notices of the AO and ultimately, AO has passed an ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. In other words, it is an assessment according to the best judgement of the AO. After making analysis of the record, ld. AO has determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.12,79,000/-.
Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which has also been dismissed ex-parte because no documentary evidence was submitted before the CIT (Appeals).
A perusal of the record would indicate that assessee has filed a Paper Book before the Tribunal wherein she has placed on record copy of Jamabandi, bank statement, affidavits, Cash Flow Statements etc. According to the submissions made by her counsel, it has been pleaded that assessee is having more than 25 acres of agriculture land, out of which SA 20/CHD/2025 and ITA 802/CHD/2025 4 8 acre was given on lease to Shri Gora Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh and 17 acre was given to Shri Darshan Singh S/o Kesar Singh. From this lease rental, these deposits were made by her.
7.1 The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that nothing was produced before the AO. This could be additional evidence, but no formal application has been filed by the assessee for permission to place these documents on the record.
We have duly gone through the record carefully. With the assistance of ld. DR we find that assessee had agriculture land reflected in the copies of Jamabandi. Though these copies are in Punjabi, the ld. Sr.DR is able to go through some of the documents. In our opinion, if this additional evidence is being taken on record, then also the opportunity is to be given to the AO for rebuttal of this evidence and also to verify the status of this evidence. Therefore, considering the overall record and the status of the assessment order or order of the CIT (Appeals) being ex-parte, we set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The SA 20/CHD/2025 and ITA 802/CHD/2025 5 assessee will be at liberty to submit all these details before the AO. The AO will re-adjudicate the issue after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
As far as the Stay Application is concerned, since we have decided the appeal itself and set aside the assessment order for passing fresh assessment order, the demand would automatically wiped out and this Stay Application will become redundant. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Application is dismissed. Order pronounced on 15.07.2025.