Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20, which confirmed additions to income (flat rate profit estimation on sales, income from other sources) and initiated penalty and interest proceedings. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide submissions despite repeated notices, leading to the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present necessary details and clarifications. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with future notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a real opportunity of hearing and in confirming additions and initiating penalty/interest proceedings due to the assessee's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
250(6), 234A, 234B, 234F, 270A, 271A, 271B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order ex-parte, without ensuring that a real and meaningful opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant, especially considering the peculiar circumstances and genuine limitations faced by the appellant in effectively participating in the proceedings. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 79,61,778/- being made as estimation The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO AY : 2019-20 2 of Profits by applying flat rate of 8% to the total sales of the appellant without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 746,348/- on account of Income from other Sources as offered in the return of Income without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective of the appellant's absence or non-compliance. 4,0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that non-appearance of the appellant does not empower the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss or decide appeal on merits without real hearing. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A, 271A and 2718 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
Delay condoned.
On perusal of the records, it is observed that despite of repeated notices, the assessee did not furnish any submission, information or documents or requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance will be made, all necessary The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO AY : 2019-20 3 details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Ld.CIT(A) and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounc The order is pronounced in the open Court on The order is pronounc The order is pronounc ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on ed in the open Court on 16 16 16/01/2026 16 /01/2026 /01/2026 /01/2026