Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which upheld the Assessing Officer's order. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and not based on the facts of the case, as the assessee could not attend the proceedings due to a severe stroke and subsequent arrest.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without considering the facts of the case, and to provide natural justice, the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) orders passed ex-parte without considering the facts of the case are sustainable in law?
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 69A, 143(3), 147, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ to 536/CHD/2024 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2012-13,2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Vinod Bagai, Vs. The ITO, बनाम H.No. 87, Ward 5, Sector 7, Panchkula Panchkula, Haryana �थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ACCPB1321K अपीलाथ�/ APPELLANT ��यथ�/ REPSONDENT ( Hybrid Hearing ) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Aman Parti. Advocate राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : .05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:
The captioned appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders, each dated 11.03.2024, of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18.
533 to 536-Chd-2024 – Vinod Bagai, Panchkula 2 2. Since the issues, facts and circumstances of the cases involved and submissions of Counsel of the Assessee in all the appeals are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order.
3. The common identical grounds taken by the Assessee in all the appeals. The common grounds taken and argued by the Assessee in are reproduced as under: -
That the order of CIT(A) upholding the order of the Assessing Officer is being challenged on facts and law since the case of the appellant was not brought on the record while passing the order.
2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer making addition of Rs. 93,33,500/- by invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. The assessee craves leave to add/alter any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.
The facts of the case, as per the written submissions filed by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 in are as under: 1. The return for the A.Y. 17-18 was filed on dt. 22.03.18 declaring an income of RFs. 7,65,000/-
533 to 536-Chd-2024 – Vinod Bagai, Panchkula 3
That during the F.Y. 16-17, I was shareholder as well as the Director of M/S Samar Estates Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate.
Proceedings were initiated in my case and notice u/s 143(2) were issued on dt. 11.08.18 & 20.08.18 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Chandigarh. The reason for selection of my case for scrutiny was the information received by the Income Tax Department that I had during the F.Y. 16-17 (demonetization period deposited cash in my bank accounts.
4. That thereafter, notices under section 142(1) were issued by the income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panchkula which were duly complied by me. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority that cash deposits in bank account during the demonetization period had been made out of the previous cash withdrawals made by me. Documentary evidence in support of above being the copy of the cash flow statement etc. was also filed by me before the Ld. Assessing Officer.
That not being convinced with the explanation offered and documents filed by me explaining the source of cash deposits in the bank accounts, the 533 to 536-Chd-2024 – Vinod Bagai, Panchkula 4 Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panchkula, vide order dt 24.12.19 treated Rs. 93,33,500/- being cash deposited by me out of previous cash withdrawals as my income by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As a result of assessment so framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, my income was assessed at Rs. 1,00,98,500/-.
It would not be out of place to being to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that though my jurisdiction was vested with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panchkula & assessment was also framed by him, the same had been done ( framing of assessment) without Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panchkula ( my jurisdiction Assessing Officer any statutory notice u/s 143(2) to me. Rather assessment was framed on the basis of notices issues u/s 143(2) by the non-jurisdictional Officer (Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Chandigarh). In view of the aforesaid framing assessment u/s 143(3) is bad in law for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
7. Against the order so passed, an appeal was filed by me before the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on dt. 20.01.2020.
8. That in the month of December, 2020 (12.12.2020) I suffered Acute Brain Haemorrhagic Stroke ( bleeding) due to which my speech as well
533 to 536-Chd-2024 – Vinod Bagai, Panchkula 5 as right side of my body got paralysed. Copy of the treatment given to me is enclosed as Annexure 1. As a result of the stroke, I suffered locomotor disability ( 50%).
That M/S Samar Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the company in which I was the Director) was involved in litigation at various forums - National Company Law Tribunal, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, etc. with the home buyers & lender bank. Copy evidencing the above is being enclosed as Annexure 2.
That thereafter, I was on dt. 15.11.2022 taken into custody as per the orders passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana on account of complaints filed by the home buyers against M/S Samar Estate Pvt. Ltd. in which I was one of the directors.
That thereafter I was released from the jail on dt. 13.04.2023 on furnishing surety of personal bonds.
That since the time of my suffering brain stroke I have to be taken care of by a full-time attendant for day-to-day activities.
That consequent to the appeal filed by me before the Worthy CIT(A) against the assessment
533 to 536-Chd-2024 – Vinod Bagai, Panchkula 6 framed vide order dt 24.12.19 (supra), notices u/s 250 were issued.
That on dt. 11.03.24, the appeal filed by me was dismissed by the Worthy CIT(A).
Ongoing through the order passed by the CIT(A), it has come to my notice that the said order has been passed without bringing on record the facts of my case.
That on account of my ill health, I could not check my e.mails for the notices issued u/s 250 & consequently I could not file written submissions along with documentary evidences in support of my case before the Worthy CIT(A).
5. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that the Assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 20.1.2010 but in the month of December 2020, the Assessee suffered Acute Brain Hemorrhagic Stroke due to which the right side of his body got paralysed. By the time he could recover, he was taken into custody as per the orders passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He was released on bail in April 2023. The Counsel has further stated that because of his ill-health as well as because of the reason that Assessee could not take care of the appeals filed by him before the ld. CIT(A). As a result thereof, after issuing
533 to 536-Chd-2024 – Vinod Bagai, Panchkula 7 various notices to the Assessee, the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeals ex- parte. The ld. Counsel also submitted that on going through the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the orders passed in all the appeals are ex-parte without bringing on records the facts of the case and accordingly the Counsel of the Assessee requested for remanding all these cases for different assessment years back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.
6. The ld. DR did not have any objection to the request of the Counsel of the Assessee.
We have gone through the submissions filed by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee and we have heard him in detail during the proceedings before us. We find that the ld. CIT(A) after issuing notices of hearing on different dates has passed an ex-parte order. The contention of the Assessee that first he suffered from Brain Storke and as a result thereof his entire right side of the body had got paralysed and later on he was arrested because of the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In nutshell, the Assessee could not attend the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was decided ex-parte without considering the facts of the case. In our considered view in order of provide natural justice to the Assessee, the Assessee should be given proper and adequate opportunity of hearing,
533 to 536-Chd-2024 – Vinod Bagai, Panchkula 8 his submissions should be brought on record and they should be dealt with on merits. Accordingly, these appeals are remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits, 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. All the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 15.05.2025 Sd/- Sd/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Vice President Accountant Member आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order,