Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee, Sri Sakthimaan Fireworks Industries, against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was ex-parte. The assessee's representative argued that the assessee is from a village and failed to take note of hearing notices, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The assessee also claimed that a notice under Section 143(2) was not issued during reassessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, the Tribunal considered the interest of justice and fair play, particularly the legal ground raised regarding the notice under Section 143(2).
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the FAA should be set aside and the matter restored to the AO, and whether the notice under Section 143(2) was duly issued during reassessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
143(2), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.11.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15.
2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the FAA is ex-parte. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is from a village and has failed to take note of the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA and hence, the appellate proceedings remained ex-parte. The Ld.AR further submitted that before AO also the assessee has responded partially and has not furnished the complete details. Moreover, before the Tribunal, the assessee has also raised a legal ground stating that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not issued in the reassessment proceedings Since, the assessee has not represented its case fully before the AO, it was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of its case.
The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
3 -: 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA. Since the assessee has not furnished the complete details before the AO and the assessee has raised a legal ground before the Tribunal stating that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not issued in the reassessment proceedings, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication along with the legal issue raised before the Tribunal. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.