Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which arose from an order by the Assessing Officer under sections 147, 144, and 144B. The assessee contended that notices were not served during assessment proceedings and that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without proper hearing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without discussing the merits of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice. It was found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice and warrants a fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2018- 19, is directed against the 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), dated 17.02.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 22.03.2023.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during assessment proceedings the notices were not served on the assessee for which Page | 1 Assessing Officer completed ex parte assessment confirmed addition of Rs.27,00,000/- as unexplained investment. Therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO and dismissed appeal of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed an order u/s 147 r.w.. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 17.02.2025 itself, which shows that the order was passed without properly hearing the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that assessee could not represent his case before CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control. Adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer and the order being an ex-parte, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.
The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. The AO added the entire cash deposit and credit entries in the bank account. He also added the investment of Rs.27,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act without discussing anything on merit, which is in clear violation of the provisions under sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, I am of the view that the principles of natural justice would call for giving another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, I hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the AO re-examine the entire issue afresh. Hence, I 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 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.