Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the business of retail medicine, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer reopened the case under section 147, treating a sum deposited in the assessee's bank account as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without addressing the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order was justified when passed ex parte without considering the merits of the case, and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh hearing.
Sections Cited
250(6), 147, 148, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shambhu Kumar…………………………………………..………….……Appellant Meharpar, Nalanda, Bihar Shariff, Bihar-803101. [PAN: AMZPK6211E] vs. NFAC, Delhi…………..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT - Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 03, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : February 04, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. Since, the issues involved in both the appeals are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of serving notices for hearing and the Tribunal cannot keep these appeals pending for indefinite time due to non-representation. Therefore, in the absence of any authorised representative of the assessee, we proceed to decide both the appeals with the help of ld. DR and also considering the material available on record. &721/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shambhu Kumar 3. First, we take up the issue in respect of for assessment year 2017-18. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of retail of medicine. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had filed his return of income on 21.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,30,280/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.19,52,600/- in his bank account during the year. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act determining total income at Rs.24,82,880/- by making an addition of Rs.19,52,600/- treating the same as unexplained income of the assessee.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear and submit supporting document. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
The ld. DR supported the decisions rendered by the authorities below.
We, after hearing of the ld. DR and reviewing the materials available on record, find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte since no compliance was made on the part of the assessee. We also find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed without addressing the merit of the case which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. In the interests of justice and fair place, we, therefore, deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to 2 &721/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shambhu Kumar re-examine the issue on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee for submitting relevant details or documents to substantiate the claim of the assessee. We also emphasise that the assessee must fully cooperate by responding all notices and due compliance will made during the remand proceedings.
Since the facts and issues involved in both these appeals are identical except difference in figures, therefore, our findings/directions given above in will mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No.720/Pat/2024. Hence, is also allowed for statistical purposes.
In terms of the above, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 4th February, 2025.