Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12. For AY 2010-11, the assessee's counsel submitted that the order was passed ex-parte before the learned CIT(A) and complete details could not be filed before the AO. For AY 2011-12, an additional ground was raised concerning an amount of Rs. 3,18,78,510 received from IIT, Patna, claiming it as a capital receipt, not a contractual receipt.
Held
The Tribunal noted that for AY 2010-11, the AO's order was cryptic and the assessee did not represent before the CIT(A). For both AYs, the appeals were restored to the file of the learned AO for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, particularly as the additional ground for AY 2011-12 required verification of facts.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment orders passed ex-parte or without detailed findings should be restored to the AO for re-adjudication; and whether an amount received from IIT Patna is a capital or contractual receipt, requiring verification.
Sections Cited
143, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
O R D E R PerDuvvuru RL Reddy, VP:
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 13.06.2024 for the AYs2010-11 & 2013- 14.
2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order was passed ex-parte before the learned CIT (A) and also that complete details could not be filed before AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that the issue may kindly be restored to the file of the ld. AO so that the complete details/ evidences could be filed and issue be decided on merit afresh.
2.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the learned AO passed a very cryptic order u/s 143/ 147 of the Act dated 27.12.2017, without giving any detailed finding. We further note that the assessee has not represented the case before the learned CIT (A) as the learned CIT (A) in para no.2 noted that the assessee has not furnished the details/ submission satisfactorily. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the end of justice would be made if the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
“1. For that the alleged amount of Rs.3,18,78,510 received from IIT, Patna do not pertain to PY 2011-12 corresponding to AY 2012-13 and is not in the nature of and on account of contractual receipt received /contractual payment, rather the said amount is in the nature of capital receipt and the same has been disclosed in the balance sheet, which is subject of CAG audit as well as statutory audit under various laws.” 3.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which is admitted and since, the facts of the additional grounds are required verification at the end of the learned AO, accordingly, we are of the view that the end of justice would be made if the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.