Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-submission of written arguments and absence at the hearing. The assessee's grounds of appeal primarily alleged a violation of natural justice due to lack of opportunity and non-consideration of a remand report by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity for being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering all documents and providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, while cautioning against frivolous adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard and considering the remand report, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM
ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 28-11-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in passing appeal order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee, which is against to the principle of natural justice.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not considering remand report JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR submitted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Sikar dated 26-02-2019 before office of CIT(A) in the manual regime.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also, Ld Lower Authorities grossly erred in not making Suo moto rectification in assessment order in compliance of Departmental Valuation officer report dated 12-02-2019.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs 34,64,766/- on account of long term capital gain.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in levying tax on the alleged transaction as 43% of land is not urban agricultural land and situated beyond 8 K.M. from the limit of municipal area.
2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee with following observations. ‘’3.7 From the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that no written submissions have been made at appellate level. Therefore, it is stated that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending and therefore the appeal is decided on the basis of documents available on record. There may be various reasons with the appellant to remain absent at the time of hearing. One of the reasons may also be a desire or absence of need to prosecute the appeal or inability to assist in the appellate proceeding in a proper manner or to take benefit of vagaries of law. However, the exact reasons for non- attendance/non-submission are only known to the appellant. The CIT (Appeal) can under such circumstances, invoke the inherent powers vested therein.
JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR These powers are embedded with certain inherent obligations also. One of such obligations is that the appellant must not be deprived of being heard. Therefore, the easiest way for appellant in this case was to furnish the written submission in support of grounds of appeal. But instead, the appellant in this case not only chose to ignore the date of hearing but even did not furnish any submissions. 3.8 Considering the above discussion and facts, it is clear that the appellant assessee is not pursuing its case on merits. In pursuance of its appeal the appellant assessee did not file any documents in support of its claim that why addition of Rs. 34,64,766/- is not sustainable. Based on these observations the appeal filed by the appellant assessee is dismissed. 3.9 In result the appeal is dismissed.
2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte and thus he did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not considered the remand report submitted by the Joint Commissioner Range, Sikar dated 26-02-2019 to the Pr. CIT (A)-4, Jaipur. The ld.AR further submitted that the lower authorities erred in not making suo motu rectification in assessment order in compliance of Departmental Valuation Officer report dated 12-02-2019.
JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR The ld. AR of the assesseee to support his case filed the following paper book which were made available before the ld. CIT(A) and AO. S.N. Particulars Page Part of records No.
Copy of remand report alongwith 1-11 CIT(A) &AO copy of Valuation report received from Asstt.Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department, Jaipur 2. Copy of registered sale deed 12-19 CIT(A) &AO 3. Copy of conversion letter for 20-22 CIT(A) &AO conversion of 7500 sq Mtr. Land Area 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the order of the ld CIT(A) wherein he observed that the assessee did not pursue his case on merit and did not file any document in support of its claim and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in spite of providing sufficient opportunities. The grievance of the ld. AR of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has not taken into consideration the remand report alongwith valuation report received from Asstt.Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department as the same was sent by the JCIT, Range-Sikar, to Pr. CIT (A)-4, Jaipur. It appears that the same might have not been forwarded by the Department before the ld. JAGDISH PRASAD BHUMU VS ITO,WARD -3, SIKAR CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi during the course of appellate proceedings. In this view of the matter, the Bench feels to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh by taking into consideration the Paper books (supra) and also by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since, it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A), therefore he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.