Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC. The assessee contended that they were not provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO had made additions based on reopening the assessment and presumptions about income from freight and vehicle hiring.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte due to the assessee not appearing. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified without providing adequate opportunity. Whether the additions made by the AO based on reopening and presumptions were arbitrary.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 250, 44AD, 44AE, 194C, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 23.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s144 r.w.s144B of the Act.
Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing order ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesse which is against the principle of justice. Therefore impugned order so passes is against the law and the said order deserves to be quashed.
2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in re-opening the assessment of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act arbitrarily.
On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in Raj Kumar Jat making addition of Rs.4,41,312/-by presuming assessee had earned 8% net profit u/s 44AD of the Act arbitrarily.
On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.42,62,009/- by presuming that assessee had actually earned such income as freight from good carriage u/s 44AE of the Act arbitrarily. 4.1 That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in considering Rs.43,22,009/- as gross receipts from vehicle hiring business and thereby erred in including cash deposits of Rs. 23,45,400/- in bank and further including transportation receipts of Rs.19,70,609 as per 194C of the Act, ignoring the fact that gross cash deposits made is out of transportation receipts shown u/s 194C of Rs.19.70.609/- and cash withdrawals during the year. 4.2 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of gross receipts instead of estimating the net profit of vehicle hiring business. Appellant prays, that only net income and not the gross receipts can be taxed, which is a settled law and thus addition so made deserves to be deleted outrightly, being totally unjust. 4.3 That the Id. CTT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in ignoring the fact that assessee has already declared income of Rs 60,000/-u/s 44AE and thereby no further additions is required to be made. Therefore it is prayed that addition of Rs.43,22,009/- made by Id. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.
The appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing the appeal.
3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Ground No.1 stated that the impugned order is exparte and adequate opportunity was not provided to the assessee. It is therefore prayed for providing one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits.
4. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Admittedly, the assessee is an individual who filed the appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the addition of Rs.47,03,321/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer in the hands Raj Kumar Jat of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. After filing of the appeal, on one of the occasion, assessee sought adjournment and on another occasion assessee did not respond and immediately thereafter ld.CIT(A) passed the impugned order exparte for non- prosecution. Considering these facts and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, I in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is at liberty to adduce all the required submissions/evidences before ld.CIT(A) to substantiate the case. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.