Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal against an assessment order made u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee's total assessed income was Rs.35,56,297/-. The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and there was a significant gap between hearings, and also sought an opportunity to provide explanations and evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order lacked necessary documents and explanations from the assessee. The assessee admitted mistakes and sought a last chance to present material. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for de novo adjudication, subject to the assessee paying costs.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and against principles of natural justice? Whether the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to submit evidence before the AO?
Sections Cited
144, 253, 250, 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069898392(1) dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18
Syed Akbar Hssain and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017.
FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee’s total assessed income exigible to tax was computed at Rs.35,56,297/-. That the aforesaid assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1019644733(1) and is dated 31.10.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”.
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein.
2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-
“1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT Appeals Faceless has passed the ex parte order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act which is against the principle of natural justice, there was a gap of more than 4 years between last hearings posted dated 16-3-2020, 3-4-2020 and assessment order passed under section 250 dated 24-10-2024.
Syed Akbar Hssain
2. Ld assessing officer has erred in treating deposits in bank account of firm, father and wife as belong to assessee and made addition of these deposits.
In the facts and circumstances of the case the 3 appellate order is vitiated on several grounds hence the same may kindly be quashed. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the addition upheld by the CIT Appeals Faceless of Rs. 35,56,297 in the hands of appellant is erroneous in nature and should be quashed. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add to amend alter modify substitute withdrawal delete or rescind all or any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing if necessary so arises”.
3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 03.07.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia brought to our notice that the “impugned assessment order” is u/s 144 of the Act. The “impugned order” of Ld. CIT(A) is too ex-parte in nature. The Ld. AR then contended that save and except one submission no other submissions could be made before the Ld. A.O and in this regard assessee admits his mistake even before Ld. CIT(A) where too he remained non-compliant. No information and documents could be furnished both at the original stage of assessment and before the Ld. CIT(A). It was also contended that there are three accounts involved where the assessee is primary holder in one
Syed Akbar Hssain and in another his mother is primary holder. In one account “partnership firm” is primary holder and if one more opportunity is granted then suitable explanation with the material in possession/evidence would be given to the Ld. A.O for adjudication and adjudgment on merits. Per contra Ld. DR contended that since the assessee is admitting to his mistake revenue has no objection if the case is remitted back to the file of Ld. A.O for fresh adjudication on denovo basis subject however to cost being imposed on the assessee for his mistakes in remaining non-compliant.
Observations,findings & conclusions.
4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case.
4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the contentions are of the considered opinion that “impugned assessment order” is u/s 144 of the Act. The Syed Akbar Hssain
“impugned order” of Ld. CIT(A) lacks documents, informations and explanations to be provided by the assessee. The assessee during the hearing has admitted his mistakes and desire last chance of opportunity before Ld. A.O where he could produce all necessary material facts with material, information and evidence so that his income is assessed and computed legitimately and in accordance with law. We therefore deem fit to set aside the “impugned order” back to the file of Ld. A.O with direction to the assessee to place a suitable reply on record along with all the material and better particulars, information, evidence etc. so that the Ld. A.O can analyze the same and pass a suitable order on merits subject however to assessee paying cost of Rs.5000/- to P.M. National Relief Fund and show necessary proof of it before the Ld. A.O.
Order 5.1 The “impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand to Ld. CITA) on denovo basis back to the file of Ld. A.O subject to above direction on cost.
Syed Akbar Hssain 5.2 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 16.07.2025.