Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeals pertained to an addition of Rs. 44,12,615/- as unexplained cash credit and a penalty levied under section 272A(2)(e) of the Act. The CIT(A) decided both appeals ex parte, confirming the additions without dealing with the merits.
Held
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeals ex parte without dealing with the merits of the additions. The assessee's counsel contended that no notice of hearing was received. The tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was silent regarding the service of notices and that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly decided the appeals on merits or if they should be restored due to lack of proper hearing notice and ex parte decision.
Sections Cited
68, 272A(2)(e), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: S/SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals of the assessee are arising from the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi, dated 22.1.2025 having DIN No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072425463 (1) and relates to assessment year 2015-16 and order dated 16.12.2024 having DIN No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/107124894(1) and relates to assessment year 2016-17. arising from the order of the Ld. AO, wherein, the Ld. AO has brought to Page 2 of 5 tax an amount of Rs.44,12,615/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of is against levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act. Since both these appeals are relating to common assessee, we are deciding these appeals by way of this common order.
At the outset, it is noted that both these appeals have been decided by the ld CIT(A ) exparte. Ld CIT(A)has just confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and decided the appeal without dealing with the merits of the addition in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.
Ld counsel for the assessee prayed that the matters may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for deciding afresh inasmuch as no notice of hearing issued by the office of the ld CIT(A) has been received by the assessee.
Ld Sr.DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We observe that the office of the ld CIT(A) has issued around four notices of hearing to the assessee. We further observe that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is silent with respect to the service of notice of hearing upon the assessee. It is settled position of .
Page 3 of 5 law that the ld CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose of the matters in a judicious manner in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. It is expected from the ld CIT(A) that he will decide the merits of the case irrespective of the fact that whether anybody appeared from the side of the assessee or not. A reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF ) (2017) 297 ITR 614 (Bom), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the ld CIT(A) is duty bound to decide the appeals after dealing with the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Therefore, we hereby restore these appeals to the file of the ld CIT(A) to decide afresh. Needless to say that the ld CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 20th day of August, 2025