Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in retail garments, filed a return of income for AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer made additions by disallowing incentive expenses and business promotion expenditure. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not respond to hearing notices due to issues with email delivery during the Covid-19 pandemic and that the Sr. DR had no objection to remanding the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-receipt of hearing notices, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, warrants a remand to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH :: COCHIN
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM& SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
O R D E R
Per Inturi Rama Rao, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax/NFAC, Delhi[for short, ‘CIT(A)’] dated 19.06.2025 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual, engaged in the business of retail garments. The return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 was filed on 15/02/2021 declaring income of Rs. 39,10,54,160/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Centre vide order dated Beena Veeriah Reddy 16/09/2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 40,09,93,806/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer (for short, ‘AO’) made addition by disallowing incentive expenses of Rs. 28,31,118/- for the alleged failure of the appellant to prove the expenditure by leading necessary evidence. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs. 47,54,958/- being the expenditure incurred on business promotion for want of evidence on record.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limini.
Being aggrieved by the above order of Ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant could not respond to the hearing notices issued by the NFAC as the hearing notices were not received to the registered email of the appellant. He further submits that the assessment proceedings were taken up in Covid-19 pandemic, therefore proper representation could not be made. In these circumstances, he prayed for remand the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR has no serious objection for remanding the proceedings to the file of AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law.
Having heard rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that having regard to the circumstances which led to passing Beena Veeriah Reddy of ex-parte ordersby the lower authorities, it is a fit case to remand the matter back to the file of AO. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 26th August, 2025.