Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 60 days. The assessee is aggrieved by an addition of Rs. 12,01,000/- made by the lower authorities on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claims that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without proper notice of hearing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions of the assessee and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without proper notice of hearing and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 144 of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
order
: 27.01.2025 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 60 day. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application and the shortness of the delay, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and the same is taken up for hearing.
The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs. 12,01,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.
I.T.A. No.: 455/PAT/2024 Randhir Kumar, AY : 2017-18 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee inviting our attention to the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer as well as of the Ld. CIT(A) has submitted that both the orders of the authorities below have been passed ex parte of the assessee. The assessee has duly pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) because the Ld. CIT(A) did not serve any notice of hearing to the assessee. The assessee has also pleaded in his grounds of appeal that the Assessing Officer has also erred in not serving upon the assessee any notice of hearing and passed assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. It has been pleaded that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to bring the true and correct factual position before the lower authorities.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee and in the interests of justice, in our view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on this issue. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and if required, he may obtain remand report from the Assessing Officer and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.