Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. The assessee's counsel argued that non-compliance was due to inability to access emails/portal and requested a remand back to the AO. The Revenue contended that notices were sent and the assessee failed to check its portal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while there was non-compliance, the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits. Considering natural justice and the assessee's request, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass an order on merit after affording due opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the case should be remanded for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
10(37)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
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./ �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mithu Ram Prop. The ITO, Garg Bearing Co., बनाम Ward, Pattran Road, Dirbha, Sunam Vs. Punjab 148035 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ARWPR6840E अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) �नधा��रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM :
Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 28.03.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y.; 2017-18.
Grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing officer is assessing the 655-Chd-2024 Mithu Ram, Prop. Garg Bearing Co., Dirbha 2 income at Rs. 84,68,385/- as against the returned income of assessee at Rs. 33,580/-.
2. That the Assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not attending to the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) since the counsel of the appellant could not access the email due to some unavoidable circumstances.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing officer by adding a sum of Rs. 57,52,503/- being exempt under section 10(37) in a summary manner without appreciating the facts and merits of the case.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer by disallowing the loss of Rs. 56,248/- and making an addition of Rs. 5,17,000/-.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer by adding a sum of Rs. 11,85,500/- being cash deposit in bank account of the assessee.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer by making an addition of notional interest income of Rs. 8,29,804/- whereas no such interest has been received by the assessee and neither the assessee has claimed any interest expenditure liable for any disallowance.
7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the merits of the case.
655-Chd-2024 Mithu Ram, Prop. Garg Bearing Co., Dirbha
3 8. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. At the very outset, during the proceedings before us, the 3. Ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that it is an ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) because of non-compliance by the Assessee. The Counsel further submitted that the Assessee could not see the notice sent on email / portal, therefore, there was no compliance before the ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that the Assessee wants to file certain papers / paper book in support of his claim, therefore, in the fitness of things, the matter may be remanded back to the A.O.
The ld. DR pointed out that although the notice was sent to the Counsel of the Assessee on email / portal, it was sent to the Assessee also on its e.mail/ portal. Therefore, the Assessee cannot claim that there was no notice from the Department. It is another thing that the Assessee did not see its portal/ e.mail on regular basis and as such there was no compliance made by it.
We have considered the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte on the ground that there is no 655-Chd-2024 Mithu Ram, Prop. Garg Bearing Co., Dirbha
4 compliance by the Assessee to any of the notice sent by him. But at the same time, it is also true that the ld. CIT(A) has not given his findings on merits on the basis of material available on record, therefore, keeping in view the element of natural justice, as per the request of the Assessee, the case is remanded back to the A.O. for passing an order 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 A.O. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31.01.2025.