Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2018-19, which confirmed an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had repeatedly failed to appear before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on delay but also adjudicating on merits.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of adjudicating on merits after dismissing for delay to be 'deplorable' as it denied the assessee an effective opportunity. Given the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition under Section 144 and in adjudicating on the merits of an appeal that was dismissed on grounds of delay, thereby denying the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
144, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 24/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025
O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 16/04/2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2018–19.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:–
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, respected CIT(A) erred in confirming order passed u/s 144 of Income tax Act.
2 Alankar Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.330/Nag./2025
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, respected CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing officer, Without considering the fact that the loan taken was fully paid off to the company in the very next year.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, respected CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing officer, without considering the fact that as on today, the concerned company's status is Active as per the MCA records.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the grounds of appeal before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal so as to enable your honor to decide this appeal according to law.”
3. On a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that there has been non–appearance before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A) despite having been granted numerous opportunities, as could be seen from the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) vide Para–4.2/Page–3, which is tabulated below:–
Sr. Date of Date of Notice Remarks no. Notice Hearing Sought hearing Enablement of 1. Communication 15/11/2022 opportunity on 29/08/2023 14/09/2023 Sought adjournment 2. Notice u/s 250 30/08/2023 on 18/09/2023 3. Notice u/s 250 05/08/2024 20/08/2024 No response 4. Notice u/s 250 19/11/2024 04/12/2024 No response 5. Notice u/s 250 07/04/2025 14/04/2025 No response
Once the appeal has been dismissed on ground of delay, the learned CIT(A) has proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merit. This sort of approach is deplorable because the appellant was denied effective
3 Alankar Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.330/Nag./2025 opportunity to plead his case. Even before us also, no Paper Book was furnished by the assessee to support the grounds raised. However, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee fervently prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to him to establish and substantiate his case and requested that the matter may be set aside to the learned CIT(A). The learned D.R. did not seriously object to this proposition. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025