Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of ₹1,24,165. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144, making an addition of Rs.5,13,68,152/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-submission of an audit report.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 144 of the Act without adjudication on merits, depriving the assessee of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to represent its case and present supporting documents before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
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, ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Annleela Vinimay (P) Ltd..………………....…………………....Appellant 413, Panchanantala Road, Paschim Putiary, Ground Floor, Megh Manasi Apartment, Kol-41.. [PAN: AACCA2542E] vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 19, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 19, 2026 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 12.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of ₹1,24,165. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 144 by making addition of Rs.5,13,68,152/-.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed for non- submission of audit report.
M/s Annleela Vinimay (P) Ltd 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the ld. AR submitted that since the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 144, the assessee did not get proper opportunity to represent its case and place relevant supporting documents on record. It was argued that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim on merits.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities.
We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the appeal before the order of the Assessing Officer is passed u/s 144 of the Act without adjudication on merits and the assessee was thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our considered opinion, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the entire issue is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law and after considering the submissions and evidence that may be filed by the assessee.