Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2013-14. The AO disallowed depreciation, 25% of various expenses, added unsecured loans, and cash deposits, determining total income at Rs. 53,42,460/-. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions, dismissing the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance with notices.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, considering the non-compliance was due to unavoidable circumstances and the potential violation of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order, passed ex parte due to non-compliance with notices, stands vitiated on grounds of natural justice, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case on merit.
Sections Cited
32 of the Income-tax Act, 37 of the Income-tax Act, 68 of the Income-tax Act, 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 250 of the Income-tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 30.10.2024 by the CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.03.2016. Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as under:
1. The Ld.CIT, lNFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,20,896/- u/s 32 of the Income-tax Act (depreciation).
The Ld.CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the 25% disallowance of Rs.33,13,774/- u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, on a/c of various expenditures.
The Ld. CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.12,12,291/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act.
The Ld. CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of 29,10,500/- being CASH deposited in banks considering the same as unexplained.
PRAYER 5.1 The addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC may be kindly deleted. 5.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 5.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted.”
Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,85,000/- for the assessment year 2013-14 on 31.03.2014. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire on 10.08.2015. The Ld. AR of the assessee attended hearing before AO and filed various details. As the assessee did not carry out business during the year, AO disallowed claim of depreciation of Rs.2,20,896/-. He also disallowed 25% of various expenses amounting to Rs.3,13,774/- because the payments were made in cash and no bills were available with the assessee. The AO also added unsecured loans of Rs.12,12,291/- u/s 68 of the Act. The AO further added /AY.13-14 Bharatbhai J Goyani cash deposit of Rs.29,10,500/- in the four bank accounts maintained by the assessee because assessee could not explain the source of the deposits. Th total income was determined at Rs.53,42,460/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,85,000/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A).
The CIT(A) issued four notices fixing the hearing on 16.12.2022, 25.01.2023, 27.09.2024 and 07.10.2024. But there was no compliance by the appellant to the aforesaid notices. Hence, the CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal based on the materials available on record. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Ashokji Chanduji Thakur vs. PCIT 130 taxmann.com 131 (SC) and reproduced assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in pages 9 to 16 of appellate order. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the appellant did not file any reply or evidence and did not avail the opportunities granted to it. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the notices were issued by the CIT(A) on the wrong e-mail address being hakimdaniit@yahoo.com instead of bjgoyani@yahoo.com. Since the assessee did not receive the notices, he was unable to submit the required details before the CIT(A). He submitted that non-compliance by the appellant was due to unavoidable circumstances. The assessee could not represent his case before CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte, stood vitiated on account of violation of principles of /AY.13-14 Bharatbhai J Goyani natural justice. Therefore, Id. AR requested that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case on merit before the CIT(A). He undertakes to be vigilant and furnish explanation and details expeditiously.
On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He stated that the Bench may decide the matter as deemed fit.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. Evidently, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by CIT(A). Hence, various additions made by AO were confirmed by CIT(A). Ld. AR of assessee submitted that non- compliance by assessee was not deliberate but due to unavoidable circumstances. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground of non-compliance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the assessment order was confirmed by CIT(A) in ex parte order, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest his case on merit. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as needed by CIT(A) and not seek adjournment without valid reason. With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.