Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a firm, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against an assessment order. The assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after reopening the case based on information received about the sale of immovable property and rental income, and the assessee's failure to file a return of income.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not raised objections regarding the issuance of notice under Section 148 before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), and had failed to comply with several notices, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A). This would allow the assessee to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard to raise objections against the assessment order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case, despite non-compliance with notices, and if the assessment order passed without such opportunity is bad in law.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 142(1), 143(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jai Ambay Minerals cuke Income Tax Department, Vs. NFAC, Delhi. 102, Sarveshwar Nagar, Ajmer, LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.:AAIFJ1487C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Nikhelesh Kataria, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :22/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 23/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Assessee, a firm, is before this Appellate Tribunal, feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 26.08.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, as thereby its appeal filed against assessment order dated 25.01.2024 , passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been dismissed, and the assessment order has been confirmed.
Sl. No. Description Amount 1. Income as per return of income filed against the No return filed notice u/s 148 of the IT Act.
Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) N.A.
Add: Long Term Capital Gain by disallowing Rs. 46,52,487/- indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 37,77,826/- as discussed supra 4. Add: disallowance of short term capital loss as Rs. 6,23,900/- discussed supra 5. Add: Income from other sources as discussed Rs. 1,37,380/- supra Total Income/loss determined as per above Rs. 54,13,767/- proposal 3. Since the assessment order has been upheld, the assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A).
Arguments heard. File perused.
Facts, as can be extracted in brief, from the assessment order, are that the department received an information, upon which it was found that the assessee had sold immovable property (s) for Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, received rent to the tune of Rs. 2,46,000/- on plot and machinery, and also received sale consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/-, as regards immovable property, but, the assessee had not filed return of income. That is how, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently, a notice dated 28.08.2023, other two notices u/s Jai Ambay Minerals, Ajmer. 142(1) of the Act were issued on 30.08.2023 and 21.09.2023, and a letter dated 30.09.2023 were issued to the assessee, but, as observed by the Assessing Officer, there was no response to the said letters/notices. This led to issuance of show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act on 10.10.2023. The assessee is said to have responded to the show cause notice and also the subsequent communication dated 26.10.2023, but did not care to respond to another show cause notice dated 08.12.2023. Assessment Order is passed 6. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed while observing that the assessee had failed to submit any substantial documentary evidence and explanation as regards above said transactions about which information was received. Same was challenged, but the appeal filed by the assessee came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal. Contentions 7. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law, having regard to the provisions of section 148 of the Act, and accordingly, Learned CIT(A) should have provided sufficient opportunity to the appellant. Further, it has Jai Ambay Minerals, Ajmer. been submitted that sufficient opportunity having not afforded, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted a paper book as regards the documents/papers stated to have submitted before Learned CIT(A) and the A.O, and separate paper book of case law. On the other hand, Learned DR has stood by the impugned order by CIT(A) while highlighting that the assessee remained non compliant despite issuance of several notices, and the assessment order went unchallenged. She has relied on decision in Deepak Agro Foods vs State of Rajasthan (2009) 16 STR 518 (SC) Discussion 8. It may mentioned here that even though initially the above said submission was made by Ld. AR for the appellant as regards objection in view of the provisions of section 148 of the Act, but, when faced with the factum of non compliance by the assessee before Learned CIT(A) despite issuance of four notices dated 01.03.2024, 07.06.2024, 27.06.2024 and 23.07.2024, Ld. AR for the appellant ultimately submitted that in case, the matter is restored to Learned CIT(A), direction be issued to the CIT(A) that reasonable opportunity of being heard be granted so that appellant is able to raise objections/grounds available to challenge the assessment order.
Jai Ambay Minerals, Ajmer.
Admittedly, no objection as raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer challenging issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. As further admitted, no such objection/ground was raised even before Learned CIT(A). In other words, has rightly submitted by ld. DR for the department, neither the Assessing Officer nor Learned CIT(A) had opportunity to deal with the objection raised as regards issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
As regards justification for non compliance by the appellant before Learned CIT(A), despite issuance of four notices during a period of about 6 months, the only submission put forth by ld. AR for the appellant is that the Tax Consultant engaged by the assessee for the purpose of appeal before Learned CIT(A) had no communication with the assessee, and as such there was non compliance. In this regard, Learned AR has relied on the affidavit of the concerned Tax Consultant.
As per Form 35, the appellant had given email address for the purpose of communication of notice/communication by way of said e-mail. Ld. AR for the appellant admits receipts of notices on the said e- mail, but he has not been able to point out if the said e-mail address is of the assessee firm or that of the Tax Consultant. The fact remains that service of 4 notices issued by Learned CIT(A) stands admitted, and even the factum of non compliance to the said notices Jai Ambay Minerals, Ajmer. also stands admitted. The Tax Consultant has furnished his affidavit and we have gone through the same.