Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 21.05.2024, concerning assessment year 2013-14. The appeal arises from an assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claims the NFAC erred by passing an ex-parte assessment order despite adjournment requests and by not providing a fair opportunity of hearing.
Held
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) requested the restoration of the appeal to the NFAC for reasons including the inability to file evidence and make submissions. The AR undertook to be more vigilant in future compliance.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC erred in passing an ex-parte assessment order without affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the grounds of appeal are valid.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 69A, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271(1)(c), 250, 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Parin Shah. CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 28.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 03.03.2025 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)] dated 21.05.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2013-14, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi / Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 30.03.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2.Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in passing ex-parte assessment order despite of adjournment request by the appellant. Ligi Biju Koddasary 3.Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act without recording escapement on part of appellant merely on borrowed satisfaction. 4.Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming reopening of assessment beyond period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and accordingly, proceedings are barred by limitation. 5.Ld.NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,38,07,368/- u/s 69A of the Act. 6.Ld.NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition without providing material and statements of the persons and thus violated principle of natural justice. 7.Ld.NfAC erred in law and on facts in charging tax at special rate as prescribed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 8.Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D are unjustified.
9. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified.”
2. Rival submissions of the parties have been heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that assessee filed first appeal on 16.04.2022. Notice under section 250 for fixing the date of hearing of appeal, for the first time for fixing date of submission by 06.03.2024, second time for making compliance on or before 14.03.2024 and finally for 17.05.2024. The assessee on all three occasions filed application for adjournment with valid reasons. It is not the case of Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not responded to his notices. The Ld. CIT(A) without giving further opportunity dismissed the appeal of assessee. The assessee was not allowed fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is given to assessee to contest his case before ld CIT(A). The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be 2 Ligi Biju Koddasary more vigilant in future and to file all necessary details and evidence on first date of hearing.
3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities.
4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. We find that before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has made a limited prayer for restoring the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons that assessee could not file evidence and his submission in response to notice of hearing of appeal and every time adjournment was sought for. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and undertaking by ld. AR of the assessee that assessee will be more vigilant in future in making compliance, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merit, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Needless to direct that before passing order afresh, the Ld.CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant and to make timely compliance of the notice issued by Ld.CIT(A). With these directions, the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/03/2025. (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) लेखा सद"/Accountant Member "ाियक सद"/Judicial Member सूरत / Surat Dated: 03/03/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* 3 Ligi Biju Koddasary