Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) passed ex-parte. The assessee claimed that the ex-parte orders were a result of their tax consultant's non-compliance with hearing notices, which was unintentional and beyond their control.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices issued by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT
Before: S/SHRI SANJAY GARG & BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member The above two appeals have been filed by the assessee against orders passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)] both dated 14.08.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) arising from the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. and 1054/SRT/2024 2 2. Identical issues are involved in these two appeals and the grounds are similarly worded except variation in the quantum of the additions on account of cash deposits and excess credit entries in the bank account.
At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the main grievance of the assessee in both the appeals is that the ld.CIT(A) neither had given proper opportunity of hearing nor served the impugned notices for hearing to the assessee, and therefore, the ex parte order passed by the ld.CIT(A) being violative of principle of the nature justice, liable to be set aside, the assessee may be given further opportunity for defend his case before the first appellate authority. To support this contention, assessee has filed an affidavit which is on record. In the affidavit the assessee has given reasons for non- compliance of the notices. The contents of the affidavits are as under:
I am engaged in the business of landscaping and I have no knowledge of the intricacies of income tax laws. Hence, I have always relied entirely on my lax consultant for all tax-related compliances, 2. That upon receiving the re-assessment orders for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014- 15, I immediately approached my tax consultant, Priyesh Ghetia, an Income Tax Practitioner (ITP No. 8/6 of 2013-14), having his office at Vapi. He explained to me that the order could be challenged by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Since, I had no expertise in such matters, he filed Form 35 for both years on my behalf. Additionally, the email ID provided in Form 35, therockbh007@gmail.com, belonged to him. 3. That since all communications were directed to my tax consultant's email ID and he was handling the compliance, 1 was under the bona fide belief that the appeal proceedings were being properly managed. However, it was only upon receiving the CIT(A) orders that became aware that he had not responded to any of me hearing notices issued during the appellate proceedings. 4. That upon learning of this serious lapse, I was deeply distressed and uncertain about the next course of action. I sought guidance from friends and family, who referred me to Advocate Hardik Vora. Upon his advice, I promptly filed an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (JTAT), Surat Bench, for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. and 1054/SRT/2024 3 5. That in view of the above facts and circumstances the non-compliance before the CIT(A) was purely unintentional and beyond my control. I had no mala fide intention in failing to respond to the hearing notices, as I was under the bona fide belief that my tax consultant was handling the matter diligently.” 4. We have heard both the sides, and gone through the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities. The ld.CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of the assessee ex parte. His order notes various notices were issued to the assessee, all of which purportedly went un-responded, leading the ld. CIT(A) to conclude that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
Considering the affidavit of the assessee, we find that the assessee has explained the reasonable cause for none compliance of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we incline to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Thus, we set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to him for fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law.