Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order under Section 144, and the CIT(A) also did not decide the issues on merit, failing to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide findings on merit and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing. To ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the AO and CIT(A), and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merit.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 147, 144, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
"नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 4.6.2024 of ld. CIT(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: -
1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre in appeal No. CIT(A), Chandigarh-1/10383/2019-20 has erred in passing order dated 4.6.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the 831-Chd-2024 Jarnail Singh, Panchkula 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as “Act”).
That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy C1T(A) has erred in confirming the actions of Ld. AO in initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147/144 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,96,60,000/- u/s 69 of the Act made by Ld. AO by erroneously holding the property purchased as unexplained investment. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and then by Worthy C1T(A) u/s 250 deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal
on or before the disposal of the same.
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that the order passed by the Assessing Officer in this case is an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act’) and the Ld. CIT(A) has also not decided the issues on merit.
831-Chd-2024 Jarnail Singh, Panchkula 3 4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) also in his appellate order has given his findings as under:-
The appellant has not submitted any details in the appellate proceedings in spite of giving opportunities to furnish or cause to be furnished Ground wise written submissions, along with supporting documentary evidences(s) and / or documents as specified in the attached annexure. if any. However, the appellant has not furnished any details
We have considered the ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer and the appeal order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in which the ld. CIT(A) has not given any findings deciding any issue on merit. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee requested the Bench that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
It is seen that both the authorities below i.e., the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) have not given any findings on any issue on merit after considering the details. In fact, that the Assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the AO was constrained to pass an 831-Chd-2024 Jarnail Singh, Panchkula 4 order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961. Since the Assessee could not file any written submissions before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also did not consider any issue on merit, we are of this opinion that keeping in view the element of natural justice, the Assessee should be given opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A) on each and every issue. Therefore, in the fitness of things and keeping in view the element of natural justice, the case is remanded back to CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28.05.2025 ( LALIET KUMAR ) Accountant Member “आर.के.”