Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order. The assessee's counsel argued that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and passed in violation of natural justice, and requested admission of additional evidence. The Revenue representative argued the assessee was a chronic defaulter.
Held
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte, with the assessee not participating in proceedings, and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) without deciding on merits are valid, and if additional evidence should be admitted.
Sections Cited
144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 20/01/2025for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
An assessment order came to be passed on29/09/2021 u/s 144 r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 20/01/2025 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20/01/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal. The Assessee has also filed Application for admission of Additional Evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 and sought for Admission of Additional Evidence.
Further the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice.
Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment with a liberty to the Assessee to produce all the documents in support of its claim. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
5. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04th February, 2026