Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) dated 10.10.2024, arising from the Assessing Officer's order under section 143(3) read with section 147 for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee's main grievance was that the Ld.CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing and had passed ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the non-compliance with notices due to communication issues and lack of proper hearing opportunities. Considering the principle of natural justice and the affidavit filed by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was sustainable without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 68, 69
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
1. 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 10.10.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14.
2 2. Identical issues are involved in these two appeals and the grounds are similarly worded except variation in the quantum of the additions made under section 68/69 of the Act.
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 its case before the first appellate authority. To support this contention, an affidavit of Shri Chitan Nandrajog, Director of the assessee company has been filed and placed on record. In the affidavit it was stated that Shri Ashit Macvan, Chartered Accountant, who was handling the income tax matters of the assessee provided his email for all correspondence, and pursuant to receipt of first notice by the CIT(A), the assessee sought adjournment for filing necessary evidence to defend its case. However, the assessee neither received any further notices on the above email nor received any physical copy of the notice, resulting into passing of impugned ex parte order. That even the assessee has filed most of the details barring a few before the AO, for which the assessee took time for compilation.
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 that 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.
3 5. 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.
Assessee shall file all the necessary evidences/documents etc. before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A), if so deems fit, may call for remand report from the AO in this respect. He thereafter, to decide the matter in accordance with the law by way of a speaking order.