Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The Assessing Officer (AO) passed ex-parte assessment orders under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to delay and did not decide on merits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the AO's ex-parte order and the CIT(A)'s dismissal on limitation grounds were not sustainable. In the interest of justice, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment order and the dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds by the CIT(A) were legally valid and fair.
Sections Cited
144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR&
ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:
These appeals filed by the assessee are preferred against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(NFAC”] relevant to assessment years 2011-12 & 2018-19 respectively. Since the issues are common and 1 identical relating to the same assessee, hence, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by first dealing with the assessment year 2011-12.
At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that AO has passed the exparte assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal before him and even not decided the same on merits of the case, which is against the principles of natural justice. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that in this case AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act on account of non-prosecution and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on account of limitation and even not discussed the issues on merits, which is not sustainable in law. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. Accordingly, the (AY 2011-12) is allowed for statistical purposes.
Our aforesaid decision taken in assessment year 2011-12 will apply mutatis mutandis to remaining appeal viz.