Loading judgment…
Facts
Proceedings were initiated against the assessee under Section 147 for AY 2015-16, leading to an ex parte assessment under Sections 144 and 147 due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) upheld this order, dismissing the assessee's appeal ex parte as the assessee failed to represent its case on multiple occasions.
Held
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's willingness to comply, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte dismissal. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) and remand the matter for fresh adjudication, given the prior ex parte assessment and dismissal of appeal.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM
Assessment Years: 2015-16 Venkateswara Divakara Shenoy .......... Appellant South Basin Road, Ernakulam Ernakulam College S.O - 682035 [PAN: AJXPD6612A] vs. DICT Corporate CIR 1(1) .......... Respondent Appellant by: Smt. Parvathyamma, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal Snr. AR. Date of Hearing: 05 .06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2015–16. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee, 2. based on information available with the Income Tax Department, proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after recording reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Accordingly, a notice under Section 148 was issued to Venkateswara Divakara Shenoy the assessee. Since the assessee failed to comply, the assessment was completed ex parte under Sections 144 and 147 of the Act on 04.01.2024, determining the total income at Rs.19,29,03,977/- after making an addition of Rs.1,73,31,760/-.
Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to represent its case on multiple occasions. As a result, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal ex parte.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has now approached the Tribunal contending that the assessee has not receive a fair opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for a remand of the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter, and the above plea for another opportunity should be rejected.
After hearing the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, we observe that the assessee has expressed willingness to comply with all future notices in remand approval. In the interest of justice, we hold that the assessee should be given one final opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of Venkateswara Divakara Shenoy the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.