Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was preferred against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing, as the notice was sent to a wrong email address and the order was non-speaking.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) order was not in coherence with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO and Dy. CIT in reopening assessment and making additions, and whether the ex-parte order was passed without proper notice and discussion on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 68, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 07/05/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Rajendra narottamdas Sheth vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 2 action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of learned Dy. CIT has in assuming jurisdiction at the last moment and the order passed by him is without jurisdiction and bad in law.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.5,60,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 68 of the Act.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear, hence, the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO for sake of the interest of natural justice.
5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.
3. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order of the assessee. The Ld.Counsel has submitted that, in fact, the assessee did not receive any email regarding the date of hearing from the Ld.CIT(A). That, the Ld.CIT(A) had sent the notice of hearing on some wrong email-id. He has further demonstrated that even the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is a non-speaking order. The Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed any facts or issues involved in this case and has not given any findings on merits. The action of the Ld.CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal of the assessee without discussion on merits is against the statutory provisions. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplates that the ld.CIT(A) would states the points in dispute and thereafter assign reasons in support of Rajendra narottamdas Sheth vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 3 conclusions. This exercise of power at the end of the Ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act.
4. In view of the above observations, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld.CIT(A). The impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh. The assessee will furnish his correct email-id as well as postal address to the Ld.CIT(A) within 30 days on receipt of this order. The Ld.CIT(A) will issue notices, both in electronic mode as well as in physical mode, to the assessee. On failure of the assessee in furnishing the correct email-id and postal address to the Ld.CIT(A), the CIT(A) will be at liberty to decide the appeal of the assessee ex-parte of the assessee, but on merits.