Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld an addition of Rs. 18,00,000. The assessment was done ex-parte under section 144 of the Income Tax Act due to the assessee's illness and non-receipt of hearing notices. The assessee claimed that they did not get an adequate opportunity to present their case.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the issue was not decided as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities, and if the ex-parte assessment and CIT(A) order should be set aside.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R PER, Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, is directed against order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] dated 08.07.2024 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 03.12.2018.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1.The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well on fact in upholding an addition of Rs.18,00,000 being cash deposited in bank account received as on money from sale of agricultural land.”
3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during appellate proceedings, assessee did not receive notice of hearing, therefore assessee could not attend the proceedings before Ld.CIT(A). Besides, during the assessment stage, the assessee did not attend before AO as assessee was suffering severe illness and as a result the AO framed assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee contended that now assessee is ready with available documents. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeeds, if the matter is considered on merit and if one more opportunity is allowed to hear the case on merits and the assessee be allowed to file necessary evidence in support of his claim before the AO for de novo assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR for the assessee fairly agrees that the Bench may impose on the assessee appropriate cost which is to be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Funds.
4. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that assessee has been given three opportunities by Ld. CIT(A) to plead his case. He further submitted that if the matter is to be remitted back to the file of lower authorities, it would be waste of time and resources of lower authorities. The Ld. DR has again argued that if the matter is remitted back to the file of AO then a minimum cost may be imposed, which can be deposited to Prime Minister National Relief Funds.
We have heard both the parties and we note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. On account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is imposed on the assessee which is to be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Funds. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met, if the Assessing Officer re-adjudicates the entire issue afresh subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” within 3 weeks from receipt of this order. If the assessee makes default in making the payment of cost then the consequential proceedings would be deemed, as vacation of our instant remand order. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant and diligent and to furnish all the details and explanations as needed by the Assessing Officer by not seeking adjournment without valid reasons. With these directions, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) �ाियकसद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 17/12/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेशकी�ित�लिपअ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��थ�/ The Respondent आयकरआयु�/ CIT आयकरआयु�(अपील)/ The CIT(A) िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयआिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड�फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy //