Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), which confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee claimed that they did not receive notices and opportunities to be heard, citing an affidavit to explain the lack of representation. The assessment order was also passed ex-parte by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation regarding non-prosecution due to non-receipt of notices. It was held that restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh adjudication would be in the interest of natural justice and would not prejudice the revenue.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's ex-parte adjudication by CIT(A) and AO was justified, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.11.2019 passed by learned ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submits that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. In so far as the reason of non-prosecution before CIT(A) is concerned, Ld. AR referred the following affidavit filed by assessee and narrated the contents of affidavit:
Ld. AR narrated the contents of above affidavit in open court, which are self-explanatory, and submitted that the non-prosecution in first appeal had occurred because the e-mails sent by CIT(A) did not reach to assessee.
Ld. AR thereafter submitted that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte u/s 144 due to non-representation but the assessee is very much ready and willing to make representation. He requested to restore this matter at the level of AO for a proper adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he does not have any objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of AO but, however, the bench must give stricter direction to assessee to represent his case before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. He further submitted that the bench must impose a suitable cost upon assessee because the assessee has remained non-compliant before AO without sufficient reasoning.
Considering above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by assessee to Prime Minister National Relief Fund and submission of proof of payment to AO. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and Page 4 of 5 do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 03/12/2025