Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- towards Long Term Capital Gain, resulting in a total income of Rs. 44,44,940/- for AY 2016-17. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal, confirming the assessment order. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices at both assessment and appellate stages, despite being 80 years old. However, considering the issues involved and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's persistent non-compliance with notices warrants dismissal or if the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment despite the assessee's age.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . On 29.3.2022, Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi, passed assessment order relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17, thereby made addition of Rs. 33,00,000/-having regard to Long Term Capital Gain to the assessee and computed total income of the assessee at Rs.44,44,940/-.
The assessee felt dissatisfied with the assessment order and as such challenged the same by way of appeal before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.
Hence, this appeal before this Appellate Tribunal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Learned AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission i.e. for remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer.
Learned DR for the department has no objection to the remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, but, she has highlighted the conduct of the assessee in the assessment proceedings and at the appellate stage.
She has pointed out that the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in connection with the assessment proceedings, and as such, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order.
Further, it has been pointed out that the assessee-appellant failed to participate even in the appellate proceedings despite notices, and as such, Learned DR has thus submitted that while remanding the matter, the above referred to conduct of the assessee must be taken into consideration, as by not participating in the proceedings there he wasted the efforts made by the department in getting notices served on the assessee so as to provide him ample opportunities, and then by not assisting the authorities below in passing the Best Judgment as regards liability of tax.
Learned AR for the appellant does not dispute the facts pointed out by Learned DR which reveal the conduct of the assessee in remaining non compliant not only in the assessment proceedings, but also in the appellate proceedings. In this regard, he has only submitted that the appellant is 80 years old person not acquainted with the procedures of law.
Records reveals that notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.3.2021; notices under section 142(1) were issued to the assessee on 22.6.2021 and 15.3.2022, but there was no response from the side of the assessee, what to say of filing of any details or documents.
Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 10. In the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has mentioned that 3 notices were issued to the appellant under section 250 of the Act. These were issued on 19.9.2024, 23.9.2024 and 30.9.2024. Date of compliance was 25.9.2024, 30.9.2024 and 7.10.2024. As against the first mentioned two notices, the appellant sought adjournment in the appeal. As regards the third notice, the appellant remained non compliant. All this shows that the department took steps so as to provide reasonable opportunities to the appellant of being heard before passing the 2 orders, but the assessee neither appeared nor submitted any details or evidence before the lower authorities. Simply because the appellant is claiming himself to be a senior citizen of about 80 years of age, does not absolve him of the negligence in not participating in the assessment proceedings and then in pursuing the very appeal filed by him.
In litigation, each party is entitled to be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. By providing opportunity to file reply, details or documents, the authorities abide by the principles of natural justice. Wwhen several notices are issued to a party, but said party miserably fails to comply with the directions, non appearance and non compliance by the Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO party, unless explained by cogent reasons, would militate much against the honest conduct of said party.
With non appearance and non compliance of the directions issued by the department or the Appellate Authority, such a negligent party not only fails comply with any to resort to the lawful procedure and remedies, but also deprives the concerned authorities of the valuable assistance sought from him for effective adjudication of the matter.
At the same time, in suchlike matters, involving serious issues, Best Judgment needs to be based on relevant, admissible, cogent and convincing material, but, in its absence, even though due to failure on the part of the assessee, judicial conscious confronts the concerned with various factors, including as to what should be done to deliver justice in the given matter.
In this case too, even though the assessee was negligent in non appearance and non participation in the proceedings before the authorities below, having regard to the issues involved, in the interest of justice, we deem it a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh.
Then, the question arises as to how to balance the things, when on the one hand the department took steps to provide reasonable Dwarka Prasad Sharma vs. ITO opportunities to the assessee of being heard, but, he was reluctant even to appear before them, what to say of furnishing reply or documents or requisite information. In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to burden the assessee with costs of Rs.8,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Result 16. As a result, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned orders, the matter is remanded back to the files of Assessing Officer with the direction to make fresh assessment after providing only one opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Assessee to produce receipts in proof of deposit of costs, before the Assessing Officer, before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File of appeal be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2025.