Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed against orders passed by the CIT(A) pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte, as no notice was served on the assessee, violating natural justice principles. The Revenue could not provide evidence of notice being served.
Held
The Tribunal noted that there was no proof of notice being served on the assessee, and the Revenue failed to provide any documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal considered it necessary to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The appeals were accordingly remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the CIT(A) was justified without proper service of notice and opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
153C, 153D, 69A, 69C, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
Appeals in these cases have been filed against the orders both dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-25, Delhi pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively.
2. Both the appeals of the assessee are revolving around common ground and hence for the purposes of adjudication were heard together and are being disposed by this common order. The facts in are being considered for the purpose of this order and since the same are identical to also.
The grounds of appeal for AY 2014-15 are as under:-
1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 1.2 That in absence of proper service of notice or grant of sufficient opportunity, the impugned order has been passed in contravention of principles of natural justice and same is invalid and void-ab-initio. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C even though the notice u/s 153C was barred by limitation having been issued beyond the period of six years as per the first proviso to section 153C. 2.2. That the year under consideration being outside the scope and purview of section 153C, the assumption of jurisdiction and impugned assessment order is invalid and without jurisdiction. 3.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction note having been recorded without application of mind and in absence of any incriminating material suggesting undisclosed income, the CIT(A) was not justified upholding the validity of notice u/s 153C which is arbitrary and not sustainable under the law. 3.2 That the satisfaction note being based on unsubstantiated and uncorroborated digital information found from third party having no evidentiary value, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C is misconceived and on mechanical basis.
4. That the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the impugned assessment order in absence of proper approval in terms of section 153D of the Act. 5.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition to the extent of Rs. 11,98,000/- u/s 69A on the alleged ground of unexplained payment of cash without appreciating the facts of the case. 5.2 That the entry appearing in some unauthenticated ledger account in the name of NK Malhotra, maintained by a third- party document has no relevance or bearing to the assessee and as such the impugned addition is misconceived and devoid of justification. 5.3 That the reference to statement referred in the assessment order in the absence of any opportunity of cross examination is irrelevant and does not deserve any credence. 5.4 That there being no case of any cash payment by the assessee, the impugned addition u/s 69 is unsubstantiated, baseless and merely based on conjectures and surmises. 6.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s 69A in respect of credit entry in the bank account on the alleged ground of unexplained credit. 6.2 That amount received in the bank account does not pertain to the assessee and same being attributable to father of the assessee Mr.N K Malhotra, the addition in the hands of the assessee is misconceived and devoid of justification.
7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 71,940/- u/s 69C on the alleged ground of commission @3% on the socalled accommodation entry of Rs. 23,98,000/- even though the same is on hypothetical basis and contrary to law.
That the orders passed by lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and are bad in law.
At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in this case is an ex-parte order without bringing on record the written submissions or supporting documents. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) was never received by the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any submissions or supporting documents filed by the assessee is an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of natural justice.
Per Contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A) in appellate order.
We find that there is nothing on record to prove that notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) were received by the assessee. The Revenue has not filed any documentary evidence what so ever in this regard. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that no notice issued by the Revenue for appellate proceedings was received by the assessee and therefore no compliance was made.
With this factual background, We are of this considered view that keeping in mind, the element of natural justice, the assessee should get opportunity to rebut the findings given by the ld. Assessing Officer before the Ld. Cit(A). Accordingly, we remand this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with direction to adjudicate this case after giving adequate and required opportunity to the assessee as per law and the assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Revenue in appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments, etc.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 20014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd February, 2026.