SMT. NANDITA SAU,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA
Facts
The assessee appealed against orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16, which confirmed additions made by the AO under sections 147/144 and 69B. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, and the assessment was barred by limitation.
Held
The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-cooperation despite multiple opportunities from the AO and CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, granting the assessee liberty to submit all relevant documents. A cost of Rs.2000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation, with non-payment leading to the appeals being treated as dismissed.
Key Issues
Legality of ex-parte assessment and appellate orders; Limitation period for notice u/s 148; Addition for unexplained investment u/s 69B; Sufficiency of opportunity of hearing provided to the assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 148, Section 69B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
Per Bench
These are These are appeals filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 19.9.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.NFAC/2012- 13/10125183, NFAC/2013 13/10125183, NFAC/2013-1410125189 & NFAC/2014-15/10144061 15/10144061 for the assessment year essment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, respectively. 16, respectively.
Shri Somnath Sahu, Somnath Sahu, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA Nos.475 to 477/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14,2014-15 & 2015-16
Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in the above three assessment years except variance of addition. Therefore, grounds raised in ITA No.475/CTK/2024 are as under:
“1. That the assessment made by the AO (NFAC) U/s.147/144 dated 25.3.2022 without considering the valid explanation submitted before him and confirmed by the ld CIT(A), NFAC vide order dated 19.9.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for not in accordance with law deserves to be quashed. 2. That the assessment order made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for and not tenable in law as the notice u/s.148 issued to the assessee is after the due date is barred by limitation and hence subsequence order of assessment u/s.147/144 dated 25.3.2022 deserves to be quashed. 3. That the addition of Rs.3,27,382/- made u/s.69B as un explained investment without considering the plausible explanation submitted before the AO as it was out of the past withdrawals from bank accounts, past savings and streedhan is illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for and against the principle of natural justice.” 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders exparte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It was his prayer that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to represent her case before the ld CIT(A) with documentary evidences in support of the claim.
In reply, ld Sr DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order of ld CIT(A), NFAC clearly shows tat the ld CIT(A) has P a g e 2 | 4
ITA Nos.475 to 477/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14,2014-15 & 2015-16
provided three opportunities i.e. on 9.11.2022, 8.8.2023 and 9.9.2024 and the assessee did not submit any written submissions/reply. It was in this backdrop that the ld CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeals filed by the assessee by confirming the additions made by the AO in the assessment orders. Even the assessment order u/s.147/144 has been passed due to non-compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It is true that the assessee also did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents to support her claims. Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the issues in all the appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit in accordance with law after giving opportunities to both the parties. As the assessee has not cooperated either during the reassessment proceedings and first appellate proceedings, a cost of Rs.2000/- is levied per appeal and same is to be deposited in the ITAT Bar Association within two months and the evidence of receipt be produced before the ld CIT(A). Non-payment of the cost would result the appeals of the assessee being treated as dismissed and the orders of the AO and ld CIT(A) upheld. Liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all the relevant documents, evidences and other details as are required to prove her case before the ld CIT(A).
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA Nos.475 to 477/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14,2014-15 & 2015-16
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/01/2025.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 23/01/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Smt Nandita Sau, Ward No.18, Jamunadeipur, Baripada, Dist: Mayurbhanj 2. The Respondent: National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, CUTTACK
P a g e 4 | 4
