NIRBHAI SINGH H.NO. 151, BOUNKRA DOGRAN LUDHIANA ,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT- NFAC DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I(5), LUDHIANA , PUNJAB

PDF

ITA 1078/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 July 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order of the NFAC for assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was initially pointed out as barred by limitation by 23 days, but the delay was condoned by the tribunal.

Held

The tribunal held that the NFAC's order suffered from a violation of the principles of natural justice as it did not consider the assessee's written submissions and dismissed the appeal ex parte. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

Whether the NFAC order violated principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's submissions and whether the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Sections Cited

250, 147, 144, 144B, 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · SC
1,335 citing

िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/06/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 23 days.

After considering the reasons for condonation explained by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, as well as the addition of Rs.1,09,61,099/- made under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained bank deposits.

At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the order passed by the NFAC suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. It was submitted that though the assessee had filed submissions dated 29.05.2024 in response to notices issued under section 250, the same were neither considered nor discussed in the appellate order. It was further submitted that the appeal was dismissed ex parte for non-prosecution despite a written adjournment request and partial compliance.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find merit in the contention of the learned AR that the NFAC has not dealt with the written submissions dated 29.05.2024, which were admittedly filed in response to the notice for hearing. The appellate order proceeds to treat the appeal as not admitted due to non-compliance and absence of representation, without dealing with the merits of the case or the submissions filed.

6.1 It is settled law that disposal of an appeal without considering the written submissions and material on record results in violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC), wherein it was held that denial of opportunity to rebut the case of the Revenue renders the order liable to be set aside.