Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessment was originally framed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining total income at Rs. 32,00,000/-.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to present its case before the CIT(A) and the matter was decided ex parte. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine for non-compliance, or if an opportunity for a fresh assessment should be granted to the assessee?
Sections Cited
250, 144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi dt. 17/10/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act ,1961 ("the Act") dated 17.10.2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi is bad both in law and on facts.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, j Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has erred in law and on ! facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- on account of ! cash deposits in bank account of the appellant, ignoring the [ submissions made by the appellant and especially the Remand I Report of Ld. Assessing Officer wherein he, after examination ] and verification of submission and supporting documents I furnished by the appellant, concluded that "therefore, the I submissions of the assessee have been found to be reasonable.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant on the ground that there was no response to notices u/s 250 of the Act by the appellant during appellate proceedings, whereas in fact the appellant had filed submissions along with supporting documents and Ld. AO had also furnished Remand Report on such submissions as called for by Ld. CIT(A).
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing in limine the appeal of the Appellant without deciding the grounds of appeal
on merit, which is contrary to section 250(6) of the Act.
5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend, or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in the present case was framed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein the Ld. AO determined the total income at Rs.32,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
4. A perusal of the appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte, primarily on the ground of non-compliance by the assessee to various notices issued under section 250 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed any written submissions. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the assessment made by the Assessing Officer.
During the course hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment application was filed. In the absence of any representation or request for adjournment, the appeal is being adjudicated ex parte on the basis of the material available on record.
The Ld. DR, though opposed the plea, left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In our considered view, the ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to present his case. The assessee appears to have failed to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A), and the matter was decided ex parte. We find it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
7.1 Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO to frame a fresh assessment in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.